TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 24, 2009
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Darin DeKoskie
ALSO PRESENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at
7:00 PM beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the
public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.
Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes of the
August 19, 2009 meeting. No corrections or changes were made.
BILL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 19,
2009 MEETING, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
M.L. Putman Consulting (Month of August, 2009)……………………………$2,250.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. ………………..………………………………………..$ 617.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq…………………………………………………………..$ 175.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq…………………………………………………………..$ 70.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq…………………………………………………………..$ 700.00
Clough Harbour LLC (Birches)………………………………………………..$ 547.50
Nancy Henry (Secretarial Services)…………………………………………….. 3 hours
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)…………………………………………….61 ½ hours
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ,
SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
JUBIE: Case #2009-16 - Conditional Use Permit - Living Classroom (Arboretum/
Botanical Gardens) “Plant It Kids” - 778 Broadway (US Route 9W; State
Hwy 5508), Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-6-20
Chairperson Pecora read the Public Hearing notice placed in the Daily Freeman, copy
was placed in the file.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUBIE,
CASE #2009-16, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SECONDED BY BILL. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
Chairperson Pecora asked if there were any comments from the public regarding this
Ritva Poom, 796 Broadway, Ulster Park – She stated that her property borders their
property for several hundred feet at the Southern extremity of their border. She thanked
the Board for all of the work that it has done for the Town and also providing notices to
the neighbors of the Jubies. She stated that when the Jubies first came to her family and
proposed the program many years ago it was very different. It was stated as a few
seasonal activities which would help to pay the taxes and other expenses which would be
necessary to maintain the large property. The programs have grown over the years and
they have grown without any input from the neighbors that she knows of and now they
are world famous. She stated that it is a very important and successful program to say
the least. She feels that she basically has accepted the changes and the programs,
accepted the noise and basically given up Autumn to the programs of the Headless
Horseman. She has had to call the Headless Horseman over the years countless times
when their rides lasted past midnight on Sunday. She has tenants that have to get up at
5:00 a.m. and children who have to go to school. When the noise got to the extreme she
would call and as a result of the many telephone calls she got to know a number of their
employees very well. They are very nice people and they tried to help her in any way.
She said that she made a bargain with herself that she would give up her weekends
Friday, Saturday, Sunday and sometimes Monday for these programs because she knows
that they have created many jobs and she did not want to do anything to interfere with the
jobs that have been created for these people. She feels that in terms of their relationship
to their neighbors they do not appreciate their sacrifice. She does not feel that the fact
that their Autumns are totally given over to the sounds that come from the Headless
Horseman have been acknowledged or appreciated. Their programs have slowly been
extended throughout the years from a couple of weeks around Halloween to now the
middle of September. She was most dismayed to see that they had placed one of their
major barkers on the Southern border of their property which adjoins hers complete with
megaphones and complete with routing tractors down that pathway with the inevitable
consequence that the sound would fill my backyard and spill into my house. She is
extremely dismayed that after all her complaints last year that they would place this
particular barker in the same place that it was last year. He has 43 acres and much of
that land is secluded where they could have placed this barker but they have chosen to
place this person right on her boundary. Given the lack of consideration for the
neighbors she was of course very concerned when she received a notice that they want to
expand their program. She came down and looked at the proposal and she is more than
disturbed. The first thing was the hours and the amount of time proposed for this
program. The program as it is proposed will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday through
Sunday, May through September. She finds it shows the little consideration that is given
to the neighbors in terms of this program. She is very concerned about noise pollution
which might come from these programs. There are megaphones, loud music, radios,
tractors moving incessantly. There is absolutely no discussion of what the programs will
involve in terms of noise. She is very concerned about her liability because the Jubies
have decided to place the greenhouse 325 feet again from the southern border that she
shares with them and since it is for children there is no description in the proposal about
how the children will be supervised and how the whole thing will be run. She believes
that one or two of the children might wander away from the group and wander onto her
property which is a field of brambles, poison ivy, woodchuck holes, etc. In addition to
this, her neighbor has established bee hives on that property. She started out with 12,000
bees and she now has 30,000. If there are children in the proximity, any where near that
border, she is very fearful about her liability. Again the Jubies have 43 acres where they
could have established this greenhouse but they chose to do it 325 feet from her property.
She is very disturbed about all of this. She proposes that they rewrite their proposal
being very specific about these issues. She proposes that the greenhouse be moved to a
more secluded location. This corner is the most densely populated corner on the Jubie
property in terms of their neighbors and this is where they chose to put their barkers and
now their greenhouse. The most dismaying and insulting part of this whole thing is that
this greenhouse in August was almost completed. She really does hope that the Board
will take this to heart. They have given and sacrificed their Autumns to the Jubies and
the Headless Horseman for the jobs that it provides but she hopes the Board will not
make them sacrifice their Springs and Summer leaving us only January, February and
March to enjoy their backyards.
Frank Amato – 1059-1061 Broadway – He also has a house in New Paltz. He knows
Michael Jubie very little. He has been to his hayride and it is a class operation. He has a
lot of cameras and watches what goes on. He is an incredible benefit to him as a
businessman. People come from Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, all over and everybody benefits
from the Jubies operation so much that it is incredible. To try to stifle business at this
juncture in life is astronomical. Everything he does whether it is traffic control, getting
everyone in and out of his site is a first class operation. The Austrians and the Germans
have been involved in this type of entertainment for many, many years. They come up
number three in the world and number one in America and we are going to just say no
more business. He is sure that the pizza place down the road, Smitty’s and the gas
stations benefits from this place. If there is a little bit of noise, we have to deal with life.
He lives in New Paltz and on Memorial Day and Labor Day he can not drive on his own
street. He does not say anything because it benefits the businessmen. He pays a fair
amount of taxes and he would like to say that they do an incredible job and he would like
to see them expand.
Michael Lange, 168 Sunset Drive – He has been employed by the Jubies for 9 years. He
is open 21 days out of the year for the hayride and what he sees from the Jubies is that
they are very fair to the neighbors. They go above and beyond and they run a class
operation and they bring jobs to this Town.
Alison Ciarlante, Manager, Lake Motel, Route 9W – On behalf of the motel, if it was not
for the Headless Horseman she does not think that they would be able to continue on as
they are. They make most of their money during these 21 days. They are booked solid
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Without the Headless Horseman she can not
imagine them being able to stay open.
Greg Berardi, owner of the Lake Motel, Route 9W - Without this operation they would
not be able to keep the establishment that they have. The Headless Horseman refers a lot
of people to them. A lot of the motels in the area have had to cater to subsidized housing
and he has tried very hard to stay away from that but it is almost impossible. The
Headless Horseman being able to expand gives him the possibility of keeping the motel
the way that it is now. There is very little business around here to draw people. The
Headless Horseman is an asset to keeping his business going.
George Tsitsera (closets neighbor), 765-767 Broadway – He lives right across the street
to the hayride. His house is the closes from anyone present here. Over the years he has
experienced different things that have gone on over there time after time and with the
amount of security that is over there someone could sneeze and they would know about
it. He believes that with the security there would be no possibility of the children
wandering around. There are chaperones and high security. It has been a benefit to the
Town for 17 years and the Town of Esopus is on the map due to their popularity. There
is a little bit of noise. His bedroom window is not that far away and he has no problems.
This is going to be for school kids and anything that we can do to benefit the youngsters
would be an asset to the Town.
Ritva Poom – Her argument is not against the Headless Horseman but it is a matter of
where they would place their greenhouse and where they place their barkers throughout
the Autumn. It is a matter of consideration for the neighbors. She feels that they should
place those buildings and the greenhouse especially somewhere else on their 43 acres.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUBIE,
SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
JUBIE: Case #2009-16 – Conditional Use Permit – Living Classroom (Arboretum/
Botanical Gardens) “Plant It Kids” – 778 Broadway (US Route 9W; State
Hwy 5508), Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-6-20
Michael Jubie, applicant, present along with Wayne Graff, Esq., his attorney. Myles
reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting review dated 9/23/09. Myles stated that he is not sure
what the Board can do at this time since we have not received comments back from the
Ulster County Planning Board at this time. Roxanne stated that we did not meet the 12
day referral timeframe so it will not be on their agenda for review until October.
Charlie stated that he is familiar with this operation and the security has always been first
class. Traffic control has been as good as it can get in a situation like that. He has no
problem with this application. He does not know what the proximity is to the neighbors.
Charlie stated that it is Route 9W and it is a commercial district. When you live on
Route 9W you kind of expect to have noise. It goes with the territory, just traffic noise in
general. Charlie stated that anytime he has been down there he has not experienced any
more noise from the Headless Horseman than the general traffic and tractor trailer noise
coming off of Route 9W.
Mike Jubie stated that they leave at the top and go around in a circle. It goes through the
43 acres and comes right back to the beginning. He stated that the greenhouse is
approximately 325 feet from the neighbor’s property line and is well within the area that
it is supposed to be. He stated that it was put there because of getting the people who
will attend this to the greenhouse. They would be able to walk through the gardens to go
to the greenhouse and it is close to the parking. Mike Jubie stated that this was all done
with regard to safety and security as opposed to putting it 43 acres away. Wayne Graff
stated that they also took into consideration where the electrical connections are and
where the sanitary facilities are. They wanted to keep the school children close to the
parking areas and some times they have senior citizens and we don’t want to have large
distances for them to see a butterfly and to see plants.
Fred wanted to clarify that the greenhouse is not really what this Conditional Use Permit
is about. The greenhouse could be put up just based on a Building Permit which he was
entitled to. The application comes in is the operation that he wants to run in the
greenhouse. He further stated that he does not see the operation within the greenhouse
creating much noise. The comment on the noise came more from the Headless
Mike Jubie does not know what she is referring to as a barker. Fred asked Ms. Poom if it
was a speaker she was referring to. She stated that she does not know. It is a stage with
a megaphone and a white structure. Fred stated that this is not what is before us.
Ms. Poom stated that they use a megaphone and it is quite loud.
Mike Jubie stated that Ms. Poom called and said that they had a hot dog wagon parked
on her property which he did not. That wagon has since been moved. He does not know
what Ms. Poom is referring to regarding a white building with a barker on it. He does
not know what she is referring to but all his structures are well within his property line.
He is only open 21 days a year for this event. Fred stated that, again, this is not the
proposal before us.
Roxanne stated that we need to keep in mind what is before this Board at this time. The
entire site is not before us.
Dennis asked for Mike Jubie to show him where the buses are coming in and where they
will be parking and how the children will be getting to the greenhouse. Mike Jubie
showed Dennis on the map. There is some paved area between the buildings and then
there would be grass. They would be taken down to get some water out of the pond and
this would probably be by a hay wagon and they will visit the gardens as well. Dennis
asked if there is a natural buffer. Mike Jubie stated that there are trees and he has
planted corn to block the view. The individual along the southern border would have to
come out of their house and walk past a bunch of pine trees in order to view his property.
Dennis is concerned about the radius of a bus turning in and where they are going to turn
around. Mike stated that he has 8 acres for turnaround. He stated that he gets buses in
there all the time. Dennis questioned the width of the driveway. Dennis stated that
traffic flow in and out of the property and site distance is his concern. He knows that he
has people watching Route 9W and they are doing a great job but he has a big concern
about the amount of traffic. He is looking to see if we can improve what he believes is a
problem. Mike does not see it as a problem since he has had buses coming in and out
and has not experienced any problems. He is concerned that the bus may block a car
coming in or out on that narrow paved area and it will create a problem. Maybe
widening the driveway may help that. He is looking to improve the condition that is
there and make it easier for people to get in and out of the property. Sign needs to be
placed on the map.
Roxanne questioned Mike Jubie if he has ever been to DOT on the entrance. Mike stated
that when they first started they were to NYS and they told him that he was good to go.
They did not give him something in writing. Roxanne stated that the issue that Dennis is
raising the Ulster County Planning Board is planning on raising as well, based on her
discussion with them. The one driveway goes into a house in the back. Roxanne stated
that Mike Jubie should contact the DOT to find out what their opinion is because we
ultimately can override the Ulster County Planning Board but we need something in
writing form DOT. Dennis asked if the Fire Department is okay with the site. He
requested that we get something in writing from the Fire Department stating that they can
get to the buildings and on and off the site without problems. Roxanne stated that this
would help him with the State. May to September is the new operation and the
Christmas operation is from the end of November until the end of December.
Mike Minor stated that this new operation will be daylight hours. He asked if they are
trying to market this through school systems. Mike Jubie stated that this was the idea. If
this is the case, you are probably talking about from 10:00 a.m. to about 2:30 p.m. Mike
M. questioned if he was going to try to get individuals as well. Mike Jubie stated that if
he is open for business he would certainly want it to be pleasurable for all ages i.e. senior
citizens, families, high school children, etc.
Bill stated that he envisions a bus arriving with children and their chaperones and the bus
driver being unfamiliar with the parking. He believes that extra precautions need to be
taken for the safety of the children. He would like to see a better definition of the plan
i.e. how the buses will turn around and how the children will get from the parking lot to
the greenhouse. He would like to see a written plan that goes into details of exactly who
does what and how it is done. Bill stated that it is his assumption that this activity would
not occur at the same time as the Holloween or Christmas activities. Mike Jubie stated
that this is correct. The paramount concern should be the safety of the children.
Roxanne stated that she visited the site today and met Mike Jubie and rode around the
entire site. There is a buffer that goes along the property line between this site and Ms.
Ploom’s property and her property is over 300+ feet away. Her house is barely visible. It
is surrounded by pine trees so she recommends that the Board go down there and take a
look because the argument made tonight has no basis. There was a good point made
about the kids being able to get in and out. Children do not pay attention so there should
be a better plan between the school system as well to make sure that they stay in line and
have a good clear way to get back and forth between the buses and the program. Other
than that, she does not see any problems.
Mike M. asked about what is going on with the Ulster County Planning Board. Roxanne
stated that it will be reviewed at the October meeting. She spoke to Rob Liebowitz,
Principal Planner, today and they have the same issue that Dennis brought up about the
entrance. She recommends that they go to DOT and get some kind of an opinion in
writing. They should get an opinion from the Fire Department in writing and take that
with them to the DOT. She feels that this will carry a lot of weight. He should make
sure that the Board receives copies of anything that they get in writing.
Wayne Graff, Esq. stated that Mr. Jubie was a State Trooper and has a background in
safety awareness. They are proposing a non-scary ultra-supervised exhibit for 6-7 year
olds and they have a good grasp on the safety issues. Mike M. stated that no one
questions Mike Jubie’s background and awareness of safety issues but having a stated
policy to measure this against not only helps us now in dealing with safety but will also
help us with any future ventures they may plan.
ALEO: Case #2009-13 & 2009-14 – Conditional Use Permit/Lot Line Adjustment –
210-218 Hasbrouck Ave. (Town Hwy 909) @Spring St., Port Ewen; SBL:
Chairperson Roxanne Pecora recused herself from the Board and left the room at 7:55
p.m. due to a conflict of interest. Vice Chairperson Fred Zimmer took over.
Dr. Edward Aleo was present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Review dated 9/17/09, copy
given to applicant and copy placed in the file. Myles stated that the applicant has
pushed the building back, shortened the length of the driveway and brought the parking
to the front of the building.
Bill agrees with everything in Myles report. His primary concern has been the water.
Bill stated that he thinks that Dr. Aleo is amenable to having an engineer work with him
on the best way to put the foundation in which is in his own best interest to make sure
that he does not run into a construction problem. Mike stated that water is the issue and
clearly the limits of disturbance and slope of the driveway is related to that and fill
material is appropriately handled after we grant sketch plan approval. We need to list as
part of approval the issues that need to be addressed so that the applicant can go forward.
He stated that Dr. Aleo should see this as sketch approval and we will still have to deal
with the other issues before granting the Conditional Use Permit.
Dr. Aleo questioned the other issues. He asked if we are talking about the engineering
aspect of what is in the ground. He was told by the Building Inspector that since it is
under one acre you really don’t need to have an engineer look at the soil. The Building
Inspector stated that when they dig and are ready to put their foundation in he will come
and inspect it. He questioned if he misunderstood something? Dr. Aleo stated that as far
as the stormwater run-off they put a 500 gallon dry well in. He was told to get numbers
and the 10 year storm run-off for a 24 hour storm maximum would be 4 ½ gallons per
minute and according to DOT engineer that did this the 500 gallon dry well would handle
any run-off. As far as the driveway goes, it is a non-paved driveway. The slope is at the
maximum of 6’ according to the contours. The whole goal here was to mitigate the
density of the 9 lots that he owns. He thought they were doing something that was
complimentary to the Town and his neighbors. At the same time if he had three houses,
which he can put on those lots that have been approved, he would not have to come
before the Board to put the houses up and he would have a lot more run-off and he could
put a driveway in and pave it. He chooses not to do this and he has been very amendable
to meeting the needs. Dr. Aleo stated that in all honesty he feels that this is an undue
burden put upon him. They do not plan to exacerbate the existing water problem.
Mike stated that this is a unique site and it is true that it has already been subdivided in
the past and that it has been approved as buildable since the 1920’s. We appreciate that
you have come in and worked with us and recognize some issues which have presented
themselves since then. Specifically, that whole area is very wet and your neighbor across
the street has an ongoing water problem. It is true that you can go and put three single
family houses there and sell them and he is not sure that the 500 gallon tank is or is not
the proper solution not because of the run-off that you will be producing but because of
the existing run-off in the area. All we are saying that we would like to go ahead and do
sketch plan approval in order for you to proceed and then we will make a list of things
that may or may not need to be done. Mike understands his concern but the Board’s
concern is that when all of this is done that everyone is as happy as everyone can be.
Mike understands that the lots have been approved in the past but they would not be
approved under the current guidelines and the Board appreciates Dr. Aleo’s cooperation.
Dr. Aleo stated that he understands but in all honesty he feels that this is an undue
burden. The soil is the soil and the Building Inspector stated that when they excavate he
will come in and tell them what they need to do. They do not plan to approach any water
level, they are not going to cause a water problem for the people across the street. They
have a water problem because at the street level they are two or three feet below the
street. He had an engineer go on the spot and according to the engineer will exacerbate
the situation. Building Inspector stated that there is not an acre and according to the
regulations he does not need an engineer and his engineer said that the 500 gallon
holding tank meets the need of the run-off for a 10 year storm. He would like to move
forward unless he is told that he will not get this approved then he has to make a decision
whether he is going to have three houses or a nice looking duplex.
Fred stated that Dr. Aleo is right that the soil is the applicant’s responsibility and when
he gets ready to build the house it will be up to him, the Building Inspector and whoever
engineers the house whether it will support the foundation or not. Basically the map in
front of us is quite sufficient for sketch plan approval for lot line adjustment and he is
also right in that he could build three houses on the land. You are asking for a
Conditional Use Permit and you obviously talked to some engineer and what we are
asking is how much water is going to leave your property as part of your Conditional Use
Permit. Dr. Aleo stated that in all honesty he did not get that impression from the notes.
He was under the impression that you wanted to know what we were going to do( i.e. a
retention pond or this dry well). Fred stated that he thinks there is some confusion
between what the Building Inspector is saying and what the Board is asking for. The
Board asked for a Drainage Study and basically what a Drainage Study encompasses is
how much increased run-off on your property is going to be generated. This is what we
want to know is how much water is going to leave your property. It will probably be less
for a duplex than for three single houses.
Dr. Aleo asked if it was possible to give this information along with the Public Hearing
as opposed to go two more months. Fred stated that he thinks we need that information
to go to a Public Hearing. Fred stated that he thinks in a previous meeting Dr. Aleo was
asked to get in touch with the Highway Superintendent and find out where the drainage
went and if it went all the way down into the Rondout Creek. He does not think that
information has been submitted. Dr. Aleo stated that if he was building three houses he
would not have to supply this information. Fred stated that the Board will have questions
come back to us as to why we granted this Conditional Use Permit if we do not know
how much water is running off your property. Fred stated that we know this is a better
plan and he has no problem with a 500 gallon dry well. Dr. Aleo stated that he really
understands the issue now.
Dennis thinks the layout is good and it is sufficient to give a preliminary approval and
whether the 500 gallon tank is sufficient depends on the type of soil because if it is clay
the water is not going anywhere. Dennis stated that Dr. Aleo should speak to Alan
Larkin, Highway Superintendent, because he has the ideal opportunity to tap into one of
the drainage lines out front and with the tank you could have an overflow pipe because if
the ground does not absorb the water at the top of the dry well the water will go into the
catch basin system and he will not have to worry about it. Dennis said just so he knows
he would not be able to fit three houses on there because of the corner lot and the
Charlie stated that there are five drop inlets and he wants to know if they are connected
to anything. Fred stated that they are and that is why he asked that they get this
information all the way down to the Rondout Creek. Charlie agrees with Dennis and he
thinks that Dr. Aleo is making his best effort to put his best foot forward and any way
that we can help to move him forward he is for.
Dr. Aleo requested that the specific bullet points be identified for him. Fred stated that
he will try to recap them. Mike stated that they will be in the motion for sketch plan
Bill stated that it is not our intent to make it difficult. His comment about the engineer
was just a piece of advice. The Building Inspector requires a set of plans developed by
an engineer with an engineer stamp. Bill stated that he would expect that the set of plans
would include the detail of the basement. Dr. Aleo stated that this is correct. Bill stated
that any engineer is going to take this into consideration that this is an item that can be
left between him, his engineer and the Building Inspector.
Fred stated that he has drainage that runs down the east side of his property and that we
will need a drainage easement for that so that the Town can maintain it. He believes that
it will need to be 20’ wide but he should check with the Highway Superintendent. The
purpose of this is for the Town to maintain/clean the drainage pipe.
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR ALEO,
CASE #2009-13 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND CASE #2009-14,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A DRAINAGE STUDY THAT TELLS US HOW MANY MORE GALLONS
PER MINUTE HE WILL DUMP INTO THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE
SYSTEM (THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BEFORE AND AFTER
2. AN EASEMENT FOR THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE
3. A GRADING PLAN FOR THE DRIVEWAY WITH A MAXIMUM 12%
4. FIND OUT WHERE THE WATER GOES IN THE STORMWATER
MOTION SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Chairperson Pecora returned to the Board at 8:30 p.m.
CASTRUCCI & DeDOMINICIS: Case #2009-15 – Minor Subdivision – 232 River
Rd., (Co. Rd. 81) @ Flatsview Court, Ulster Park
Applicant Paul Castrucci was present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Report dated
9/18/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Myles informed the Board that
we received a determination from the Building Department that Flatsview Court met the
definition of a mapped street so creating a lot with frontage on this private road will not
Mike supports granting sketch approval at this point. Bill has no problems with this
application at this time. Dennis questioned what the building is that is 5’ off of the
property line. Paul stated that it is a small brick accessory building. Dennis asked how
many lots beyond this property the driveway serves. Paul stated that there are three other
lots. Fred questioned the proposed well on Lot B, this is across the road. He asked
where the existing well is on that lot. Paul stated that there is an existing well and
showed the Board on the lot. Paul stated that they are not using that well because it will
be too close to the septic field. Fred stated that they might find it is cheaper to pump the
septic up hill than it is to drill a well but it is up to the applicant. Fred stated that you can
not put a well 10’ on the other side of the road. Myles questioned how close it is to
whatever is on the property on that side. Paul stated that it is a big empty field. Fred
stated that he thinks it has to be 15’ off the property line for the Board of Health. Fred
stated that we will need contours as this moves along. Roxanne questioned contours and
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
CASTRUCCI & DeDOMINICIS, CASE #2009-15 MINOR SUBDIVISION,
SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Paul questioned what he needed to do next. Roxanne informed him that basically
preliminary and final are the same with some minor differences. He will need to label
lots, add contours and topography and start the Board of Health process. He was told that
the Board of Health process could take up to six months. Roxanne stated that we
received a letter from DEC. When he returns with all of this information and if
everything is in order we will schedule a public hearing.
GRAY: Case #2009-17 – Minor Subdivision – 1863 Broadway (US Route 9W; State
Highway 5508), West Park; SBL: 80.001-4-4.2
Roxanne stated that we received copies of the Certificate of Occupancy from the
Building Department so that we can proceed with this application regarding the prior
open building permits that the Building Inspector wrote us about last month. All prior
open issues with the Building Department have been resolved.
Applicant Camille Gray present along with engineer Robert Gray. Myles reviewed M.L.
Putman Consulting Review dated 8/18/09. Myles stated that he received a letter from
CSX stating that the applicant has an easement but he does not know if this answers the
question so we need some clarification. Camille stated that the railroad fixed the wrong
area and will need to come back and complete the crossing area on her property.
Dennis questioned the south end of the property a parcel labeled Lot 3 with a 55’
frontage. Robert stated that this is part of Lot 1. Camilla stated that CSX is scheduling
a meeting with the engineers so they will be sure of what needs to be fixed.
Mike questioned if we would normally approve the concept of a shared entranceway onto
Route 9W. We try to stay away from this in terms of future potential problems between
two people. Myles stated that what the Board tries to do is make sure the property has
frontage so that if there is a shared driveway we don’t worry to much about it so if there
is a dispute somebody will have fee simple frontage where they theoretically can get
another curb cut if they had to. Robert Gray stated that it is feasible to get another
driveway but they would prefer not to have another driveway since it is 55 mph in this
area. Mike stated that the real issue then is the CSX railroad. Bill thinks this is the best
plan and he has no problem with it. Fred would like to see a driveway shown for the
proposed house whether they build it or use it or not. Roxanne said that we are going to
need a road maintenance agreement. Fred said that we will not need this if they show us
a driveway for the proposed house and then they can take care of the road maintenance
agreement between themselves and whoever they sell it to. Robert said that he will show
it on the map. Robert stated that they are showing an easement on the map between the
lot owners for the shared driveway. Dennis stated that they should put a note on the map
stating that if the driveway does not go in on the north lot then the easement takes effect.
Mike asked if the access down to the house falls within the 12% grade driveway rule.
We are only worried about the driveway getting into the house. The railroad is
reconstructing the grade crossing.
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
GRAY, CASE #2009-17, SUBDIVISION, SECONDED BY BILL. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS
Roxanne informed the applicant that they can go forward with the preliminary plat and
do the driveway and everything that is listed in Myles report in the conclusion section.
Robert Gray asked if it would be appropriate to request that the Board schedule a Public
Hearing at this point. He was told that the Board does not have a complete map in front
of them so a Public Hearing can not be scheduled at this time.
PERCIVALLE: Case #2008-15 – Major (5 lot) Re-subdivision – 44 Hudson Lane,
Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-5-2.32
Ed Pine was present representing Joseph Percivalle. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman
Consulting review dated 9/18/09. Myles stated that this applicant has not been before
this Board since February 26, 2009 when this application was referred to Clough
Harbour, Peter Lilholt, Planning Board Engineer. Myles feels that applicant needs to
deal with Peter’s comments from his 3/24/09 review.
Ed stated that he does not expect any action on this application at this time. He knows
that it is not at that stage. He is here for the most part to keep the application active. Ed
stated that he will be getting in contact with the engineer himself and go over revisions
that have to be made. Ed stated that his client would like to know if it would move
things along if he goes from a 5 to a 4 lot subdivision. Myles stated that if they go to a 4
lot they still have to deal with the issue of getting access to the lots so you would still
have to build some kind of a road whether it is a Town road or a private road. It still
makes it a major subdivision. There was some discussion regarding why they were back
before the Board at this time. Ed stated that his client contacted him and told him to get
things going again. Roxanne stated that she will advise Pete Lilholt that there is $800.00
in the account and hopefully it will not exceed that.
Ed questioned the reservation that was put in with regard to future access to the south.
This was done at the request of the Board or Myles and does it have to be in there. Bill
asked if they had a problem with that and if it harmed their plan in any way. Ed stated
that Fred raised the question of this splitting one of the lots. Bill asked if it was not the
objective of a Planning Board to provide proper planning for the future. Ed stated that it
is. Bill asked if it would not have been easier for them to bring the road in from River
Road. Ed stated that they would then have to buy additional property. They have the
frontage on Hudson Lane. Bill stated that it would save the driveways that no one is
going to be able to get up or down. Ed stated that they are all under 12% and that is the
requirement. Ed stated that the applicant purchased this piece of property with the intent
of putting in 10 lots then they discovered how much wetlands there were and now it is
down to 5 lots. Ed stated that he is here representing the owner in regard to the plans
only not the saleability of the lots or anything along those lines. Bill asked if the road
was going to be a private road and Ed stated that at this time that it is the plan. Fred
stated that he was under the impression that they were going to dedicate the road to the
Town. Fred stated that a private road in this Town is built to the same specs as a public
road. Ed stated that he was going to try to get a dispensation and leave it as a gravel
road, private road, like a driveway. Fred and Roxanne told him that this would not be the
case. Bill agrees with Fred and this would lead to a letter of credit for the cost of
building the road should the developer fail to complete the road. Ed stated that he will
explain this to the applicant. Mike stated that the question remains does the applicant
need to have access for possible continuation to the south. Ed stated that he received his
answer and he will leave the reservation in there.
Discussion took place regarding whether applicant will be selling the property. Mike
stated that it is simple if the applicant sells the property now the new owner buys it as
one large lot and if he wants to subdivide it he will need to come before the Planning
Board and start the process over. Right now there are no approvals and this will need to
be conveyed to the new owner.
Ed was advised that to tell the applicant that there may need to be an increase in his
Escrow Account next month.
REYNOLDS: Case #2009-20 – Lot Line Adjustment – 1285 & 1291 Route 213
(State Hwy 116) 541 Main St. (County Hwy 871, St. Remy; SBL:
63.006-3-15.114, 15.115 & 21
Michael Vetere, surveyor, was present representing the applicant. He submitted a letter
from the applicant giving him permission to represent them and a letter requesting a
waiver of the Public Hearing. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated
9/18/09. Proposal is affecting three existing parcels and they are just going to be new lot
lines and exchanges of land between the three lots and it is going to be left as three lots
when everything is completed.
Following some discussion the Board members were happy with the plan as presented.
CHARLIE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING PER
SECTION 107-16.A FOR REYNOLDS, CASE #2009-20, LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
REYNOLDS, CASE #2009-20, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY
MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL
SUBJECT TO OWNERS SIGNATURE ON ALL MAPS FOR REYONLDS, CASE
#2009-20 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS
REIKER: Case #2009-21 – Lot Line Adjustment w/Bain – 570 Millbrook Drive
(Town Hwy 880) 229 Gurney St. (Town Hwy 905), Port Ewen; SBL:
56.067.1-2.1 & 56.059-1-21
James Reiker, Jr. present along with George Bain representing this application. Myles
reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 9/18/09, copy given to applicant and
copy placed in file. Applicant submitted a letter requesting waiver of the Public Hearing
pursuant to Section 107-16.A.
Mike stated that it seems like it is a pre-existing condition, nobody knew where the lot
lines were and this makes it right. There are no new lots being created and he has no
problems with this. Fred stated that we are just making the one lot bigger. Dennis stated
that they are making a non-conforming lot conforming.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT
TO SECTION 107.16.A FOR REIKER, CASE #2009-21, LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR
REIKER, CASE #2009-21, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY
CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MIKE MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
SUBJECT TO THE SIGNING OF THE MAPS AND SUBMISSION OF A MYLAR
FOR REIKER, CASE #2009-21, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY
FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
LaMIRAGE STEAKHOUSE: Case #2009-19 – Site Plan: Sketch (Lands of Sam
Adel) 423 Broadway (US Route 9W; State Hwy 310)
Port Ewen; SBL: 56.020-3-28.2
Applicant Sam Adel was present along with his attorney Joseph Pisani. Myles reviewed
M.L. Putman Consulting Checklist dated 9/15/09 and M.L. Putman Consulting Review
dated 9/23/09, copy was given to applicant and copy was placed in the file.
Myles stated that he has been made aware of the fact that the NYSDOT Real Estate
Division has provided correspondence which is attached to this application indicating
that the DOT engineers have no issue with the canopy sign encroachment and it is just a
matter now of a price being set. The second concern is with the southerly parking lot
being gravel and the Board wanting to see some hard blacktop surfacing. There is a lot
of landscaping detail provided.
Dennis stated that he agrees with everything that Myles has already said. Dennis stated
that in the meeting they held at the Town Hall it was agreed that there would be some
sort of paving. Right now it just shows it as all grass and gravel. Dennis explained that
when he met with William Brinnier it was explained to him that in our zoning
requirements you have to have a dustless surface and the least this Board has approved
was at least the drive area paved and the parking areas being graveled which help with
the drainage and at the same time keeps the hard surface where the cars are driving easy
to plow (on south side). Dennis stated that they will also notice that on the south end
parking on the west side it deadends into the curbing. This will be tough for people to
come around and he looked at this and some of the spaces can be omitted. They have
enough in the count. They are nine over on the count so if you took some of those spaces
out so you have a drive through so people can drive around that will not be an issue.
Dennis showed the area he was speaking about to Joe and explained that they need to get
a 24’ drive area. Some of this area needs to be paved. Joe asked about Item 4. He was
told that this is not a dustless surface. Dennis asked that they put arrows on the map
showing in and out.
Roxanne stated that she spoke with Port Ewen Fire Chief last evening and the Fire
Department is okay with the plan.
Mr. Pisani requested that the Board reconsider the southern parking lot. This is an
overflow parking lot and rarely used and he is requesting that they reconsider this
needing to have the center area paved. There is grass there now. Discussion took place
regarding the southern overflow parking area. Dennis stated that we have not approved
an application like this and our Zoning Code says dustless. If we start to do this now,
every applicant who comes in front of us is going to request this. Dennis stated that he
was unhappy with the application that was before us on Route 9W opposite to
Stonehedge but he was out-voted. Roxanne stated that she has to agree with Dennis in
this area and that we should’ve never allowed the partial paving. Fred stated that this
was a concession to help the individual financially. Roxanne believes that we have
already set a bad precedent with partial paving.
Mike stated that he does not meet the count without the overflow parking. Roxanne
stated that he has to define the parking areas in the overflow parking area. Dennis stated
that we need details on the enclosure for the dumpster.
Mr. Pisani stated that we are dealing with the situation that in today’s economy
restaurants are lucky to remain open and to require him to pave this would be an
extraordinary expense and he believes that it is an undue burden at this time for this
restaurant owner who is struggling to maintain his existence at this time. He respectfully
requests that the Board waive the requirement of paving the center portion.
Mike stated that there are three possible solutions: 1) leave it the way that it is, 2) pave
the center aisle with the hash marks as discussed and 3) that you pave the whole thing.
Mike stated that this is not overflow parking; this is required parking for a building this
size. However, the owner is not filling up the building so it is only used once in a while.
Ideally he thinks Roxanne is right that this is a bad precedent and he should have to pave
the whole thing. But there are two steps back from that and one is to pave the center and
the other is to say until such time it is warranted treat it truly as overflow parking even
though it is not. He does not know if we can do this legally. Dennis stated that parking
is parking and you need the parking clearly by the size of the building. Our Zoning Code
does not address overflow parking. Joe stated that this restaurant has been in existence
for over 50 years, it is the same capacity and it has not changed. We are not asking for
any additional capacity, we are just asking to keep the status quo. Mr. Pisani thinks
maintaining the status quo would be in the best interest of the business owner.
Discussion continued regarding how often the overflow parking lot is used. It was
agreed that it may be used once a month. Fred stated that he has a problem telling
someone that they have to pave a parking lot to put people in it once a month. Fred
questioned whether we could pass some kind of resolution. He thinks he has to pave a
little bit to straighten it out on the south side since you can only drive half way around it.
It probably should be paved out to the end of the parking places. Fred would like to put
some kind of resolution in here that if business picks up we can get the rest of it paved.
Roxanne stated that we do not have leeway to negotiate this based on business flow.
Roxanne stated that we have worked out things in the past with our attorney and she
suggests that Mr. Pisani put together a proposal and we will take it to our attorney which
means that the applicant will have to open an Escrow Account.
Mr. Pisani questioned what the Code requires. He was told it requires a dustless surface.
They could oil and chip it, put pavers down, there are a lot of things they could do.
Dennis said that they could oil and chip the middle and connect it to the hard surfaces.
He would be agreeable to this. Fred stated that to do this you would be throwing your
money away because it will only be there for six months. Mike stated that Fred’s idea
about bringing the edge of the pavement on the south side of the building out to the
parking lot spaces should be done then the first row of overflow parking meets our
requirements. Then what we are asking Mr. Pisani to write is that it would be a special
use to be reviewed every two years. He will have minimal costs now and then we can
revisit this. Dennis asked if we could alter the Zoning Code or would they have to go for
a variance. Myles stated that they would have to go for a variance. Dennis stated that
he does not know why we are going through this when they could go for a variance.
Discussion continued regarding what the best way to proceed would be. Roxanne
believes that we can get by this by a legal document.
Mr. Pisani asked Fred what his suggestion was again. Charlie marked out the area that
should be blacktopped. Fred said that if they are only using it for an overflow even once
a month we could in some way come back and revisit this if he starts using it 2-3 times a
month or some kind of timeframe where he comes back in two years and we revisit
whether it warrants the rest of the parking lot to be paved. Mike stated that what Bill is
suggesting is that we do this without going to Peter Graham. This is a Chairperson’s
issue. If somebody comes and says that you did this wrong, then we deal with this issue.
We can say pave strip next to south side of the building, don’t do the rest and we will
review it every two years as of today’s date. Hopefully Sam’s business will take off and
the next time he comes back we will tell him that he has to pave the whole thing.
Roxanne asked how we would measure this. They said that they would automatically
come back every two years. Roxanne stated that it has taken five years to get them back
before this Board and she is not willing to agree to a two year review. Mike stated that
then we need to do it legally. Bill stated that most lawyers do not make technical
decisions. The most we can expect from a lawyer is whether this is consistent and meets
the code. Roxanne informed Bill that this has a five year history. Sam was asked if he
had any suggestions. Mr. Pisani explained to Sam that the Board is suggesting that he
work out some sort of a legal document with the Planning Board attorney which will
allow the parking lot to be utilized as it is subject to just putting additional pavement
next to the building so that it is straight and pave the center driving area. In order to do
this, the Town will need to be made whole on the fee so the Board is requesting that you
put up $1,000 for an Escrow Account. It may not cost $1,000 and you will get back the
balance. Mr. Pisani asked Sam if he was willing to pave the middle portion. Sam stated
that he took the grass out and put in Item 4. He has plans to pave the whole area and put
garden in there and make a nice parking lot. As the economy went down the past four
years, he can not afford even to hire a cook. He has the plans and when the economy
gets better he would like to pave the whole thing. Mr. Pisani asked him again if he was
willing to pave the middle portion now. Sam stated “no, he can not do anything now”.
Mr. Pisani stated that the only other alternative is for him to sit down with the Planning
Board Attorney and work out a resolution that will allow you to maintain the parking lot
as is subject to paving just the one area next to the restaurant and it will require $1,000 in
escrow to cover the attorney fee.
Mr. Pisani asked if there were specifications that define what a dustless surface is.
Dennis stated that a paved area is basically a dustless surface. It could be paved with
many things. It could be brick pavers, concrete, blacktop as long as it is a paved area. If
you just put stone dust down, it will turn into powder eventually as you drive over it. Mr.
Pisani stated that they will put $1,000 into an escrow account and adjourn this until we
hear from Peter Graham, Esq.
CHARLIE MADE A MOTION TO OPEN A $1,000.00 ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR
LAMIRAGE, CASE #2009-19, SECONDED BY MIKE. MOTION WAS PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Roxanne stated that there will be no conditions of approval. In 2004, we granted a
conditional approval and it took five years to come back here. Roxanne stated that she is
not inclined to give conditional approval. Mr. Pisani stated that it took him three years to
get the State to agree to the overhang. Dennis said that Mr. Pisani needs to see where the
State is when they come back with this answer. Let’s resolve this issue and see where
the State is. The lights on the building need to be shown, a copy of the DOT permit
when they get it. Myles stated that they need to delineate the existing and new curbing, if
there is additional landscaping proposed for the curbs that needs to be noted. A note
should be put on the map that the shrubs are either going to be removed or cut down at
the entrance or near the sign (part of DOT agreement). Myles mentioned the letter from
the State dated 3/2008 asking for construction detail drawings for the curb. Dennis will
check this. Brinnier’s map shows the DOT curb cut detail in the corner of their map.
Roxanne recommended that they meet with Dennis when they are ready to submit their
maps to make sure that everything is on them. Myles asked if we wanted to see a grid
plot of the lighting. Roxanne stated that the County Planning Board will want to see this.
Dennis stated that he thinks Brinnier was telling us that the lighting is no longer
produced and he can not get the detail. It was agreed that we will wait for the County
Planning Board comments regarding the lighting.
Mr. Pisani stated that he will have the plans adjusted, meet with Peter Graham after the
escrow is opened and he will come before the Board again.
ZBA REFERRALS: None
Educational Credit – Roxanne stated that there is a Stormwater Management Seminar on
Spetember 29, 2009 from 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. She will check and see if there are
educational credits given. There is also a conference on October 14, 2009 and she will
check to see if you are given credit for this.
Charlie stated that he will be taking an all day class in Beacon to fulfill his training
requirement for the year.
Dennis wanted to go on the record stating that he is a little disappointed that we are not
following the rules in the zoning. If we start bending rules for one or two, it is going to
progress into something more. We did it with another applicant and now we are saying
that we are sorry we did it. I understand that the applicant before us this evening is
having a hard time because of the economy but he should have been in here five years
ago and done what he needed to do. It is his own opinion that if we don’t make him do
what he needs to do, he has not come back here on his own before, the only way that he
would agree to anything is if this applicant puts up a bond for the amount of the paving.
Dennis stated that this is a bond, you do not pay the full amount, you pay 1%. It is an
insurance policy. Fred stated that this is a viable solution. Fred stated that the Bond is
probably less than the $1,000 we asked for the escrow. This would be a good solution.
Dennis feels that we are getting ourselves in trouble by doing what we are doing.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:26 PM.
NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: OCTOBER 22, 2009
DEADLINE DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2009
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: OCTOBER 8, 2009
Planning Board Secretary