TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING
ESOPUS LAKE (a.k.a. Hudson Point)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

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

ALSO PRESENT:                             Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
                                                            Dan Shuster, Shuster Associates
                                                            Peter C. Graham, Esq.
                                                            Peter Lilholt, Clough Harbour Associates

Chairperson Pecora called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM requesting a motion be made to go into Executive Session to discuss with our Planning Board Attorney, Peter C. Graham, Esq.

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, SECONDED BY CHUCK.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  BOARD WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:15 PM.

DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, SECONDED BY MIKE MINOR.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  BOARD RETURNED FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:55 PM.

Individuals present representing Esopus Lake were Ralph Zucker, President of Somerset Development Corp., Joseph Eriole, Esopus Lake Attorney and Nicholas Graviano, Somerset Development Corp.

Chairperson Pecora stated that in regard to Esopus Lake’s request for Preliminary Plat Approval there has been a lot of discussion and this Board has carefully reviewed all the material.

The Board has come up with three possibilities:

  1. Absolute Denial because of the inadequacy of the submission material.
  2. Asking the applicant to waive the 90 day option or give us the definition of how much more time they would need to meet the requirements for an adequate submission allowing the Board sufficient time to review the material.
  3. A Conditional Approval (Draft Resolution) which everyone has a copy of.

 

Joe Eriole, Esq. started by thanking the Board and the consultants for all of their hard work of the last several months.  The Board has been given a lot of material and there has been a lot of discussion about what has not been provided and they recognize that this Board has been under a lot of pressure from the Ulster County Planning Board.  Joe stated that as an advocate having submitted the material and having it deemed complete to hold a Public Hearing and having closed the Public Hearing and having had additional discussions about further submissions should be; they believe that the plat is approvable as  a Preliminary Plat.  They believe very strongly that the concerns that the Town has as far as the entitlements and the pressure that would be put on this Board for the next step would be delayed by any conditions to them submitting for the Final Plat approval.  They believe there would be sufficient protection.    

Joe stated that their position is that first they do not want an outright denial.  He agrees with the Board’s position that if the notion were to get Preliminary Plat approval at all costs then they would have to waive and extend the time to make those decisions. They are against this.  The Board does have the Conditional Site Plan approval option which has the benefit for them of laying out all the conditions and everything that the Board needs before the Board acts on Preliminary Plat but without the 6 month statutory deadline.  Joe feels that this would be preferable to them. 

Ralph Zucker stated that he is a little frustrated.  He knows that there are a lot of things that have to be done before they receive Final Plat approval.  He knows that Preliminary Plat approval can not be given but he is having a hard time understanding what changed from when this application was deemed complete and the hearing was closed.  He is aware that there is a lot of work that will be needed to be done before a building permit can be obtained and all of the ii’s need to be dotted and the tt’s need to be crossed but he thought it was the request of this board not to overburden the engineer to put too much on the record now that did not need to be there and some complaints that they were getting into too much detail at this point.  Then we come back here and he is not sure what has happened.   Ralph stated that his company is between a rock and a hard place because in order to move this process forward they need more than a pat on the back that says you are doing a good job and keep it up.  They need something that in some way has some teeth into it.  It has to be something real.  He understands the Board’s need to protect itself so that when they do come back they can not be forced to accept something.  We can not spend the time and all the money and come back the next time hoping to get it approved and the rules have changed.  We need to find the right formula that will protect the Board and at the same time give them what they need to continue.  They have to receive something that is real and the conditions can make it real and they are willing to live with those conditions.  He is seeking Conditional Approval which allows them to come back with a project of this size and do all the work that needs to be done whether it is geotech or drainage or SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) or whatever it is knowing that the Board is not going to come back and say we don’t need the project.

Joe stated that it is clear in the Draft where it says, “ Now, therefore, be it further resolved by the Town of Esopus Planning Board that Conditional Site Plan approval is hereby granted for the entire site as illustrated on the Overall Site Plan dated Jaunary 4, 2008, subject to the following conditions and the Applicant is encouraged to submit detailed site plans and subdivision plats for the first and subsequent stages of development as soon as practical.”  That this language is tied to the PUD Section of the Town Code.  It is clear that this is not a feel good it is tied to Section 123-56.B.  Joe stated that we can say that this has come out of the Code and has teeth in the Code and if we meet the conditions when the market is right then we have something to go with.  Joe stated that it seems to him that whatever this Board approves of, the geotech analysis would be in there as some sort of a condition.  His request is that where it talked about in the Draft under Item #3 – Geotechnical Analysis – that there be language in there as it pertains to this development.  He believes that this Board knows that the entire issue of the slope failure along the length of River Road is not necessarily Somerset or Silver’s problem so to the extent that this can be modified to limit it to this site he thinks Ralph would be comfortable.  Ralph stated that they do the geotech that is needed for their project but they are not going to solve the County’s problem with River Road.  Joe stated that although this is not everything that they hoped for he thinks that if the Board adopts the Draft at the next meeting it potentially solves Ralph’s problem and he will not be so much under the gun and at some level the parties involved will have to take over the position of having to do something about the slope problem. 

Chuck questioned how it takes the pressure of the slope failure off.  Ralph stated that what it does not allow the County to say that it is the developers problem to solve the geotech problem and they can go home. Part of the pressure they have been under is to resolve the geotech and make sure the Water Treatment Plant does not slide into the Hudson River and we are in no position to do that.  This puts the onus back on the County and they will need to participate like any other possible owner in that area will need to participate.    

Joe stated that the Preliminary Plat Approval comes with a six month statutory period in which they have to meet all the conditions.  The plans themselves would mean that the County and everyone else is aware of the fact that they are up against this requirement.  They have to meet these conditions.  That means to the other stakeholders that we need to get to that place. 

Mike M. stated that this developer has come in and done a lot of things right.  There was an issue with emergency access and the boulevard and they have worked with this Board, talked to the people in this town and worked towards a resolution of this issue.  There has been some agreement with some of the issues related to the Ulster County Planning Boards recommendations for this site.  This Board wants to encourage this project.  We would like to see this project built.  Our sole concern is that we want to make sure that this can be built in such a way that it does not affect all those issues that have been raised.  We are not trying to punish anybody.  We need to do this in such a way that it does not violate our responsibilities under the law and this includes dealing with the Ulster County Planning Boards (UCPB) recommendations.  If we can do this and come to some agreement, then there is a potential here that this project can be built. 

Ralph stated that they understood that there would be enough conditions put into this agreement that there is no reason why they should even come back in for Preliminary Plat.  They would probably come back in for Preliminary and Final Plat Approval.

Pete Lilholt stated that this has been the whole problem in his opinion. They came in in February with the project design and the Board said hold on a second and that is when you had too much information.  Applicant was told that we need to flush out the issues, work through the issues, address them and as a result a design change evolves in response to comments from this Board, the consultants and other agencies.  We have received nothing since that initial submittal besides the preliminary SWPPP.  The last thing we want you to do is go back and just redo everything and throw it in front of us and say okay it is ready for your approval, go approve it.  We want to continue the discussions and we want to work with you. 

Ralph felt that he misunderstood what he was saying.  They are going to work with the issues but in order to do this they need a positive vote from this Board that means that if they work through these issues the Board will approve this project. 

Fred stated that there have been some things that just have not been addressed.  Access on Rt. 9W could substantially change that end of this project.  The drainage and stormwater is incomplete and this could change a lot of the layout and a lot of the details.  The Geotechnical Report; he noticed that rock is right below the surface through most of the site.  He does not know how they are going to get the foundations, drainage, water lines, infrastructure, etc. in.  There is a lot of rock in there.  This is just from looking at the test pits and you don’t even have any borings in there.  Fred stated that there should be enough information in the Geotechnical Report so that Pete Lilholt and his company can evaluate the impact that the slope is going to have on the rest of this project or the impact that it is going to have on River Road not to mention the impact from the DEC.
Darin would like to see the mitigation of wetlands.  This has to be addressed and this could change the project.  Fred stated that there may be any number of items that need to be addressed that they can not foresee the right conditions for inclusively.  

Joe stated that he thinks that we are past that.  Joe stated that what Ralph is stating is that this is tied to a code provision, it has conditions that allow them to come in with boxes that need to be checked off that this Board is satisfied with the Geotechnical Report, DEC requirements, etc. Fred stated that when they come back with those conditions this Board might see things that we need additional information on that is not covered in the original resolution.  Joe stated that they understand that.

Dan stated that the Board has reviewed the Resolution and have had discussion regarding the resolution and there were a couple of modifications.  One modification is to clarify that the conditional site plan is in accord with Section 123-55.D.2 is a legitimate request.  The Board is particularly concerned with the last sentence in that paragraph where it specifically states, “such conditional site plan approval shall in no way be deemed to be equivalent to or in place of required approvals of preliminary and final plat(s).” We will
Reference a Homeowners Agreement for the Board’s approval to address ownership and maintenance of the open space and a caveat that says that such recommendations shall be limited to dimensional details.  Applicant has indicated to Peter C. Graham, Esq. that they are prepared to grant a waiver to that and if they do that this will be incorporated in the resolution.  Peter C. Graham, Esq. stated that the waiver should be done by the applicant, not in a letter.  It should be a specific waiver from the applicant and would be binding on any successors and interests.  Peter C. Graham further stated that when the Planning Board makes it’s decision it may include recommendations as to desirable revision to be incorporated in the Site Plan which shall be stated as a condition of approval.  Such recommendations, however, shall be limited to siting and dimensional details within general use areas and shall not significantly alter the sketch plan as it was approved in the Zoning proceedings.  This has to be waived.  Dan stated that these details need to be addressed so that the Board is comfortable. 

Ralph stated that he is not comfortable with the waiving of this.  This does not give him a warm and fuzzy feeling.  Joe stated that if he does not waive this then the Board cannot pass the resolution.  Joe explained that what they are waiving now is the right to challenge these conditions in the resolution on the basis that they go beyond that.  Ralph asked if the Board can come back on a later date and say you have your SWPPP, the drainage, emergency access is good, you have DOT approval, Geotech is fine but we want 12,000 sq. foot lots.  Dan stated that they cannot since it was not a condition set forth in the resolution   Dan stated only the conditions set forth in the resolution.  Fred stated that we changed that and said but not limited to.  Darin stated that this protects Ralph as much as it protects the Board. 

Dan stated that there was some concern on the Board’s part that what if something comes up during the review of all this material that could be interpreted as not being included in these conditions which is a legitimate concern.  The proposal was to add something that says conditions including these but not limited to.  Dan stated that he thinks that we need to explain what that means.  Pete Lilholt stated that what it means is that we do not have enough information to go to Preliminary Plat approval.  Dan feels that we can explain what that means without leaving it completely open ended. 

Joe stated that the kinds of issues that might come up as they meet these conditions would be enveloped in meeting these conditions. He feels that this is fine and the Town is protected and Ralph is protected.  He does think that saying not limited to; Ralph cannot waive conditions that he does not know.  To the extent that these conditions get met then the facts or issues that arise may change the  conditions like the slope then this is an issue for the SWPPP, it is an issue for the Geotech. 

Peter C. Graham stated that applicant signing for itself and any successor is issue that it will not bring an Article 78 proceeding within the 30 day statute on the basis that the conditions imposed exceed the authority of the plat. 

Ralph is very concerned that conditions are going to come up.  He understands that issues are going to come up that are going to change the plan.  They are looking for the Board to say that this Site Plan is acceptable to them subject to their ability to make it work.  The onus is on them.  Ralph stated that the process may dictate that the plat they are now looking at may not be feasible.  Joe stated that what they are saying is that the unexpected facts are still going to fall under the umbrella of the category. 

Fred questioned where the fill is going to go, how much fill will be needed, how much rock, what is the blasting permit for, etc. There is no way that they can cover everything.  Fred said take the traffic study.  The State may say they need another intersection.  Joe stated that this falls under another agency.  Fred questioned the Geotech.  What if they provide a Geotech Report and the Board does not feel that it is enough to evaluate the situation.  That is why we are putting this statement in there. 

Dan stated that the resolution states that approval of detailed site plan(s) and subdivision plat(s) will be dependent on compliance with the above conditions to the complete satisfaction of the Planning Board.

Mike M. stated that what we are saying is here are the necessary limits but the definition of sufficient is to the satisfaction of the Planning Board.    Ralph felt that this is totally subjective to the satisfaction of this Board. Joe stated that it is not totally subjective as the law set the range of this discussion. 

Roxanne stated that we know what we need to do.  We have three options and it appears that everybody is comfortable with option three at this point.  She asked if there are additional wording changes that someone wants they need to get them to her.  Roxanne reminded Joe Eriole that we need the release and the waiver signed by Ralph. 

CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY DARIN.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37 PM. 

Respectfully submitted by:

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary


TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:   Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
                                                            Chuck Snyder
                                                            Fred Zimmer
                                                            Michael Minor
                                                            Michael Sprague
                                                            Darin DeKoskie

BOARD MEMBER EXCUSED:     Dennis Suraci

ALSO PRESENT:                             Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
                                                            Dan Shuster, Shuster Associates
                                                            Peter C. Graham, Esq.

Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at 7:00 PM beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.  Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.

MINUTES:

Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the Minutes of August 28, 2008.

MICHAEL M. MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2008, SECONDED BY MICHEAL S.   MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.

VOUCHERS:

M. L. Putman Consulting (Somerset)………………………………………….$   720.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (Month of August)…………………………………..$2,250.00
Clough Harbour & Asso. (Somerset)…………………………………………...$2441.00
Daily Freeman (Miles P.H.Notice)……………………………………………...$    11.64
Shuster Associates (Somerset – August)………………………………………..$1,350.00
April Oneto (secretarial services)………………………………………………..45 Hours

DARIN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

 

BAILER:  Case #2008-10 – Conditional Use Permit – 13 Fawn Meadows Court,
                   Ulster Park; SBL: 63.004-3-11.342

Chairperson Pecora read the Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman, copy placed in the file.

CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BAILER, CASE #2008-10, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. 

Chairperson Pecora asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding this application.  No one was present to speak regarding this application.

MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON BAILER, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBRS WERE IN FAVOR.

WILBER:  Case #2008-07 – 2 Lot Subdivision – 1514 Route 213; 27-31 William
                    White Road, St. Remy; SBL: 63.001-1-41

Chairperson Pecora read the Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman, copy placed in the file.

MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR WILBER, CASE $2008-07, 2 LOT SUBDIVISION, SECONDED BY MIKE S.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.            

Chairperson Pecora asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding this application.  No one was present to speak regarding this application.      

CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY FRED.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.

OLD BUSINESS:

BAILER:  Case #2008-10 – Conditional User Permit – 13 Fawn Meadows Court,
                   Ulster Park; SBL: 63.004-3-11.342

Kenneth Bailer present for this application.  Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 9/13/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE BAILER, CASE #2008-10, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF MAPS WITH THE SURVEYOR STAMP AND SIGNATURE REMOVED ALONG WITH SIGNATURE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND 6 PAPER COPIES, SECONDED BY FRED.  MOTION PASSED 5-0-1.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck……………..yes
Fred……………….yes
Darin……………...abstained
Mike S…………….yes
Mike M……………yes
Roxanne…………...yes

WILBER:  Case #2008-07 – 2 Lot Subdivision – 1514 Route 213; 27-31 William
                    White Road, St. Remy; SBL: 63.001-1-41

Dustin Wilber present for this application.  Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 9/13/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

DARIN MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR, SECONDED BY MIKE M.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck…………….yes
Fred………………yes
Darin…………......yes
Mike S…………...yes
Mike M…………..yes
Roxanne……....….yes

DARIN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR WILBER, CASE #2008-07, FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER COPIES AND 1 MYLAR WITH OWNERS SIGNATURE AND THE STAMP AND SIGNATURE OF NYSDEC DENOTING THEIR CERTIFICATION OF THE WETLAND BOUNDARIES PLUS A RECREATION FEE OF $1,500.00 PER LOT FOR A TOTAL FEE OF $3,000.00, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck………….yes
Fred……………yes
Darin…………..yes
Mike S………...yes
Mike M……….yes
Roxanne………yes

FERGUSON:  (Hudson Valley Schools of Advanced Aesthetic Skin Care & of           
                          Massage Therapy – Trade School) – Case #2008-18 – Conditional
                          Use Permit – 1723 Broadway (US Route 9W; State Hwy. 5508),
                          West Park; SBL 80.001-3-23

Applicant Maria Ferguson was present.  Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 9/17/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Applicant is in front of the ZBA for parking variance and since this is a critical issue this Board can not take formal action until this process is completed. 

Maria Ferguson submitted a copy for the file verifying that an application has been submitted to the Ulster County Health Department.  Copy of letter submitted that was sent to NYSDOT.  They have located the septic system and leach field.  Mike M. asked if the septic system is under the area where the parking lots are proposed.  She stated that it is not.  Maria asked if for the integrity of the house and to keep the country charm with the old oak tree does the parking lot need to be paved with blacktop or is #4 stone acceptable.  Myles stated that the Code requires a dustless surface.  Myles stated that it sounds like asphalt.  Darin stated that in terms of drainage it is going to be modeled the same once you drive on it unless you go with an impervious asphalt.  Maybe at least the handicapped spaces and some sort of access way be provided and paved.  Her concern is that if at one time in the future when she retires and she sells the house it probably would not be as marketable with a 100 car asphalt parking lot.  She thought that for the country look and charm and the trees that are there it was something that she wanted to ask.  Fred stated that Item #4 in the parking lot is probably okay. 

Board members again stated that they are waiting for permission to walk the site.  Maria thought that the permission has already been granted.  She believes that it has been granted as long is it is outdoors.  The ZBA had asked the same question.  The Board thanked her and members will plan to visit the site.  Maria is going to ask her engineer to do a Plan A and a Plan B for the parking and submit it to the Board for their review and opinion on which one they like. 

Maria asked if we were at the point where we could schedule a Public Hearing for this application.  Following some discussion it was felt that this could not be scheduled until after the ZBA makes their decision. 

Darin stated that it was discussed at the last meeting about possibly doing some bank parking and that there was not the need for the whole 120 spaces and perhaps one of the lots could be reserved and when the need arises then the lot could be put in so that maybe we would not be disturbing as much right away which may help with some of the initial visual impact.  Maybe we could do some sort of phasing.  It would still have to be fully designed.  She does not think that it is 120 she believes that it is 101.  She does not want them parking on the grass.  Darin thought that in order to save some of the green space and maybe provide a little more landscaping buffer for the time being and if she finds the need for more parking then she could set aside a certain portion of the parking to be built in the future without having to come back before this Board.  It would have to be designed and we would approve it as is and at any time the Town could say that she needs to put it in or if she sees the need to put the additional parking in she could then do so.  She thought that this could be doable. She would like to entertain the thought of doing the Phase II extension and maybe modify it to 80 spaces.  She would still have to show the full parking and in two phases with one to be built in the future.

Mike M. stated that it seems that the applicant has done what the Board has asked for and we are just waiting for the process to work through.  We should encourage her and thank her and make our suggestions and let her get on with it since we can not do anything at this time.  Roxanne informed the applicant that the Zoning Board is a three month process and they do not make their decision until the third month so the earliest they would make their decision would be November. 

Myles stated that the applicant should complete Part I of the EAF (Environmental  Assessment Form) completed.  She will relay this information to her engineer. 

ESOPUS LAKE (a.k.a. Hudson Point, Somerset Developmtn LLC):  Case #2008-01     

  1. PUD Site Plan and Subdivision – 597 Broadway, 122, 128 & 139 River Rd.,  2 & 35 Black Creek Farm Ct., Miranda Lane, Port Ewen; SBL:

56.020-3-25, 64.001-1-8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 24 & 25, 2-1.1, 2 & 13.2

MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR CONSULTATION WITH OUR PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY, PETER C. GRAHAM, REGARDING ESOPUS LAKE PUD, SECONDED BY MIKE M.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. 

MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, SECONDED BY CHUCK.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.

Ralph Zucker, President of Somerset Development LLC, Nicholas Graviano, Somerset Development LLC and Joseph Eriole, Esq., Veneziano and Associates were present representing this application. 

Roxanne informed applicants that the Board needs the written agreement as discussed at the Workshop session of 9/23/08.  Joe stated that he had Ralph Zucker sign the release and the agreement.  Roxanne informed the Board that there is a 7 page Resolution which needs to be read as part of the record. 

Resolution Agreement dated 9/25/08, read, as part of the record. 

Chairperson Pecora asked if anyone on the Board wished to discuss the Resolution just read as part of the record.  No one wished to discuss anything further regarding this resolution.

MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS RESOLUTION AS READ WITH THE ONE CORRECTION ON PAGE 3 AS NOTED THAT THE TOWN BOARD BE CHANGED TO THE TOWN OF ESOPUS PLANNING BOARD.  JOE ERIOLE STATED THAT THIS CHANGE IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT, MOTION SECONDED BY MIKE S.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck…………….yes

Fred………………yes
Darin……………..yes
Mike S………...…yes
Mike M…………..yes
Roxanne………….yes

Joe Eriole informed Chairperson Pecora that he will Fed-Ex the signed documents to the office the next day.

PERCIVALLE:  Case #2008-15 – 7 Lot Subdivision – 44 Hudson Lane, Ulster
                              Park; SBL: 64.003-5-2.32

Joseph Percivalle and Ed Pine present representing this application.  Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 9/18/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Applicant’s wetland consultant mapped over 13 acres of wetlands on the site.  DEC correspondence received dated 9/12/08 stating that there are no wetlands but they have not had a chance to look at the new map.  The Board needs to declare Lead Agency status since the 30 day time period is up.  This Board should not go any further with this application until DEC evaluates the situation so that the applicant can make appropriate design changes.  Darin stated that if it is over 12.4 acres of wetland it potentially could be a DEC regulated wetlands and they would want to be notified and he believes they would work with the applicant since it was not previously mapped.  It is up to DEC to make this call.  It is applicant or his representative’s responsibility to contact the DEC.

MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE THE PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS APPLICATION, SECONDED BY DARIN.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck………….yes
Fred……………yes
Darin…………..yes
Mike S………...yes
Mike M………..yes
Roxanne……….yes

NEW BUSINESS:

SCHROETER:  Case #2008-20 – Subdivision – 85 Soper Road, West Esopus;
                             SBL: 71.001-4-28.11, 28.12, 28.2 & 29

Todd Schroeter, applicant and John Stinemire, engineer present to represent this application.  Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 9/17/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Applicant, Todd Schroeter, requested that Board members make a visit to the site.   Mr. Schroeter agreed with the comment by Myles stating that this will “open” up previously difficult-to-develop lands and the Board is justified  in examining closely the potential impacts from future “as-of-right” development of the proposed lots, primarily because the project will make these lands more suitable for development.  Mr. Schroeter is willing to state that there will be no further subdivision, no further extension of the road and no further development of this land.  Roxanne stated that this Board can not restrict further subdivisions.  If this is to be done, it needs to be done in the applicant’s deed.

Fred questioned whether this applicant needs to pay the Recreation Fee.  Roxanne stated that this fee went into effect last year and it deals with any subdivision. 

Mr. Schroeter stated that the land has not been used since the 1850’s.  The road that runs down there you can drive a car down.  There is a road all of the way through to where the stream comes through.  DEC has been there two times due to the wetlands.  They are working with John Stinemire and they have approved a bridge across the wetlands.  They want to see the final plans.  They want a box culvert put in.  The Highway Superintendent has already been there and marked out the driveways and they already have the permits.  The County Health Department has been there already.    Mr. Schroeter stated that the Pre-submission Meeting was very helpful for them and would like to thank the Board for that. 

Roxanne questioned that this goes from 4 lots to 3 lots.  This is correct.  Mike M. stated that the shared driveway was significant with the option that if the people who share the driveway do not get along they can each widen one way and out to the side and make it two side-by-side driveways.  Roxanne asked who is going to own the road.  Todd stated that the boundary lines split the road one half on one side and one half on the other.  If there is ever a problem, they would widen the roads and keep to themselves.  He does not intend to turn the road over to the Town.  This is basically a driveway or a private road.  Myles stated that it serves two houses so it is a private road.  We will need a Road Maintenance Agreement.  Mr. Schroeter stated that they could just build the road wide enough to meet their needs and if they want to they could file for a shared private road .  Fred felt that the way it is set up right now you don’t need a Road Maintenance Agreement since they both have room enough to put their own driveway in.

Todd questioned that if somebody does not want to share that one strip and before we set it in stone that they have to do it and if somebody wanted to buy one of the parcels and they want to share before they build would they come back to this Board and do a Road Maintenance Agreement if they wanted to do that?  Fred stated that if it can be shown wide enough in each direction and whether they build it or not is up to them. Myles stated that when they do the site disturbance and stormwater we will have to do it as if two separate driveways will be developed.  Darin stated that either way we would want some sort of drainage study. 

Roxanne stated that we need to decide if it is a lot line adjustment or a subdivision.  Myles believes it is a lot line adjustment since what he has researched these properties pre-date subdivision regulations and the proposed action is going to result in a reduction in deeded parcels.  Following some discussion the majority of the Board (5) felt that this application is a lot line adjustment and there would be no recreation fees.  It was the consensus of the Board that a Public Hearing will be required.  

We will need a Full EAF, Part I.  Coordinated review as mentioned but it was felt that this does not need to be done.  We will need a copy of the Highway Permits.  We will need a copy of correspondence from DEC.  Lot lines to be deleted and lot lines to be added need to be shown on the maps.   The house location indicated on Lot 3 needs to be moved out of the wetland area. 

Applicant was informed that he could request a waiver of the Public Hearing in writing.  Discussion among the Board members regarding the Public Hearing took place.  Myles  stated that he felt that this is a pretty substantial project and the Board might want to visit the site.  It was agreed that the Board would like a Public Hearing on this application.

Board members scheduled a field trip to visit the site for October 2, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.  Members interested in visiting the site should meet at the Town Hall.

MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SCHROETER, CASE #2008-20, FOR OCTOBER 23, 2008 AT 7:10 PM, SECONDED BY MIKE S. WITH THE SUBMISSION OF FULL EAF, PART I, UPDATED MAPS SHOWING LOT LINES TO BE DELETED, LOT LINES TO BE ADDED, THEIR INTENTIONS FOR THE ROAD, BULK REGULATIONS SHOWN, MAPS STAMPED BY THE SURVEYOR AND ZONING INFORMATION, SIGNATURE BLOCK AND OWNER’S CONSENT TO FILE BLOCK ADDED SUBJECT TO A $200.00 FEE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.  VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Chuck…………..yes
Fred…………….yes
Darin…………...yes
Mike M………...yes
Mike S…………yes
Roxanne……….yes

ZONING BOARD REFERRALS:

None

CORRESPONDENCE:

FRED MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY ROXANNE.  ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.  MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 PM.

NEXT MONTHLY MEETING:       October 15, 2008  (if needed)
                                                            October 23, 2008
                                                            Deadline Date:  October 9, 2008

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION:             October 2, 2008

Respectfully submitted:

April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary