TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 2010


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Charles Wesley
Fred Zimmer
William Devine
Michael Minor
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
7:05 p.m. beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the
public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.

MINUTES: Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the
minutes of the August 26, 2010 Meeting.

Fred Zimmer stated that applicant’s name Murphy was misspelled on Page 2.

CHARLIE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2010, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

VOUCHERS:

Daily Freeman (Peleg)………………………………………………………...$ 10.19
Daily Freeman (Mid Hudson Valley Federal Credit Uniont)…………………$ 11.64
M.L. Putman Consulting (July, 2010)......………………………………….....$2,250.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)………………………………………….48 1/2 hours

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

FREER: Case #2010-13 – Lot Line Adjustment – 90 & 92 Esopus Avenue
(Town Hwy 859), Ulster Park; SBL: 63.004-6-2-30 & 31.1

Applicant Janet Freer was present. Myles Reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report
dated 9/16/10, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Applicant stated that all the lots were family lots. She stated that when her aunt put the
trailer in in 1970 her uncle had a surveyor come in and gave her father a piece of property
that supposedly the trailer was on. When they had it surveyed a couple of years ago for
the driveway they were told that the trailer was not on their property. They were told that
in years back they did not survey the way they do now and that is why they are in this
situation.

Mike stated that the trailer would grandfather in under the current Town Code if it was
part of the other lot but it can not do that with the new drawing. Myles stated that we
will resolve one issue and we will make another one and we can not just exchange. Mike
stated that the intent was always to do it this way which would have been okay at the
time. Applicant said that it was always considered on their property and they pay the
taxes on it. The previous surveyor passed away.

Fred asked who owns Lot #1. That lot was her grandmothers and they sold the property
and when they sold she got her driveway from her cousin and they moved the right-of-
way over the driveway. Fred stated that the right-of-way is over two properties; hers and
the new neighbor. Actually it is over the driveway and it gives them access to the house.
Fred stated that this is not what the survey is saying. Bill asked if the trailer and the
house are under the same ownership. Janet stated that they are both owned by her.

Roxanne stated there are two options. Applicant can go to the Building Dept. and get a
permit for an accessory apartment which is the easiest way out rather than going to the
ZBA for a variance. Myles stated that it would be a Use Variance under Section 123-
11.A or a permit for an accessory apartment though they may need an area variance
because some of the rooms may be too big. Darin stated that it would be a Use Variance
on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. Myles stated that the Building Inspector has ruled
on this application by a memo dated 9/23/10 so if someone disagrees the person who
owns the property needs to go to the ZBA and request an interpretation.

Discussion continued about whether they go for an accessory apartment or ZBA
variance. When applicant decides what direction to go in (permit for accessory apartment
or a use variance) and this is accomplished then they can come back before this Board for
the Lot Line Adjustment.

OLD BUSINESS:


HERMANCE: Case #2010-11 – 2 Lot Subdivision - 4 Hermance Rd (Town Hwy
891);761 Broadway (US Route 9W; State Hwy 5508), Ulster Park;
SBL: 64.003-5-22.1

Applicant Marilyn Hermance was present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting
Report dated 9/16/10, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.

Ms. Hermance stated that she asked John Post, surveyor, to realign the road reservation
area but it looks like it’s near the pool and her house. He did not do it correct. Fred stated
that we can mark it up and she can take it with her and give it to the surveyor. Mike stated
that he needs to account for the corner of the deck as well as the legal setback that is
required.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
HERMANCE, CASE #2010-11, SUBDIVISION FOR 10/28/10 AT 7:10 PM AND A
REFERRAL TO THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD SUBJECT TO
REVISED MAPS BY THE DEADLINE DATE OF 10/14/10 WITH THE
REQUIRED CHANGES AND PAYMENT OF A $200.00 PUBLIC HEARING FEE,
SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

Marilyn stated that she talked to the Ulster County Health Department. She was told that
the Board can approve the subdivision subject to receipt of Health Department approval.

GELLER: Case #2010-10 – Lot Line Adjustment with Famiglietti – 29 & 31 – River
Road (Co. Rd. 81), Ulster Park; SBL: 56.076-3-3.1 & 4.2

Applicant is represented by Chris Zell, Brinnier and Larios who was present at this
meeting. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 9/16/10, copy given to
applicant and copy placed in the file.

Roxanne informed Chris that the Board can not take action on this application at this
meeting since we have not received comments from the Waterfront Advisory Board yet.

Chris asked that while he was here does the Board feel that there is anything additional
that needs to be added to the maps. He was told no. It was explained that the Waterfront
Advisory Board usually meets the Tuesday before the Planning Board but this month the
4th Tuesday of the month falls after the Planning Board Meeting.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS PER
SECTION 107.16.A, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN
FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

CITIVISION INC.: Case #2010-12 – Lot Line Adjustment – Rear of 50-60 Carney
Rd. (Town Hwy. 852), Rifton; SBL: 63.003-3-22.1 & 4-40

Bill Eggers, Meddenbach & Eggers, was present to represent this application. Myles
reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 9/16/10, copy given to applicant and copy
placed in file. Myles stated that 39 acres will be added to a 5 acre lot owned by Baroni
and Citivision will retain about 10 acres. New survey maps were submitted.

FRED MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS PER
SECTION 107.16.A, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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

FRED MADE A MOTION TO RENDER A DETERMINATION OF NON
SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT CONDITIONAL FINAL
PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER MAPS AND
ONE MYLAR HAVING BEEN SIGNED BY THE OWNERS FOR CITIVISION,
CASE #2010-12, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL
MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

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


PORT EWEN DINER: Case #2010-05 – Expansion Site Plan – 295 Broadway
(US Route 9W; State Hwy 310) @ Hudson View Terrace,
Port Ewen; SBL: 56.076-1-15

Applicants Neftali and Sibbie Lemus present along with Dave Sember. Myles reviewed
M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 9/22/10, copy given to applicants and copy placed
in file.

The revised submission for this month does not constitute a complete site plan. The lack
of landscaping, lighting and storm water management details will likely be an issue with
the County Planning Board. ZBA has granted the variances required.

Charlie feels that the run-off may be an issue. Darin agrees with Myles review and items
he listed need to be looked at. Fred thinks that it will be the run-off from the parking lot
that may be an issue. Mike does not feel that it is a complete submission at this point.
Bill feels that the biggest issue is the drainage. Bill feels that they may come out ahead in
terms of usability if they paved the entire parking area rather than leave part of it as
gravel. Fred stated that the run-off from gravel or paving is about the same. Darin stated
that they need to look at the traffic circulation, possibly the curbing and there is a
complete DOT catch basin in the front. Darin stated that you could be separating the
drainage out where you are not taking all of it to the back end of the property.

Roxanne stated that we need a complete site plan which would include several maps
showing landscaping, lighting, drainage study or one map encompassing all of this data.
There is no reason that this can not be shown on one map. Traffic circulation needs to be
looked at.

TUCKER POND: Case #2009-23 – Site Plan Modifications – 96 E. Main St @
Sackett St. @Kline Ln. (TH 910, 915), Port Ewen,; SBL:
56.060.3-25.01 thru 25.16

Charlie recused himself from the Board at 7:50 PM.

Joseph Berger was present representing the applicant. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman
Report dated 9/17/10, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file.

Roxanne stated that Fred and her met with the Fire Chief and he was going to go down
and look at the site. A letter was received from the Port Ewen Fire District, Clark Maines,
dated 9/23/10 stating that due to the fact that the buildings are already in place they find
the site plan as proposed acceptable. Fred stated that when they met with Clark Mains
they showed him a few changes that have not shown up on the maps. Fred showed the
changes to Mr. Berger and he stated that they have no problem completing the changes as
Fred pointed out.

Engineering Report received from Peter Lilholt, Engineer, Clough Harbour, dated
9/22/10.

Joe Berger stated that this is project that is already built and a lot of the comments from
the Town Engineer refer to this project as a new project. Some of the changes requested
can not be done. There designs were done based on what they can do within the area that
they were asked to do the changes in. Joe stated that within the realms of what they can.
They are more than willing to work with the Board.

Roxanne stated that the letter we received in March from the Highway Superintendent was
that he felt that the entrance way needed to be 90 degrees from the roadway and back at
least 40 feet. We concluded that they already are that.

Joe stated that they want details regarding the Water/Sewer design. He was told that he
will need to work with the Water/Sewer Superintendent on these issues.

Roxanne reminded the Board that there are only three items that we can deal with due to
the Article 78 Lawsuit Decision. We can deal with parking, curb cuts and retaining walls
and anything else is beyond our authority at this time. Fred stated that you have traffic,
stop signs, etc. We will need the easement. Roxanne further stated that Pete Lilholt may
have mentioned some things that would be good to do but we can not require you to do
them. Fred stated that we just want to know what is there. We can ask for as-builts.
Mike asked if the surface of the pond is below the surface of the crawl space. Joe stated
that he does not have that information. Fred stated that he thinks we need a finished
basement and finished floor elevation for the first floor. Joe stated that he has asked the
surveyor for this information and he will ask again.

Roxanne stated that the escrow account needs to be increased. Escrow is presently about
$1,800.00 and Clough Harbours Review will run about $1,500.00. If you have one to two
more reviews with the engineers, she would think that it would cost about $5,000.00. Joe
stated that given the fact of the lawsuit should the Town engineer be reviewing anything
other than the three issues. Joe stated that it appears that he is spending a lot of time on
issues outside of those three. Mike stated that he thinks we have told him this but it has
been a matter of time since they have been before us. Fred is requesting that they show us
what is out there since it already exists. Joe stated that in 2007 his client did hire a
surveyor and unfortunately he did not get what we would call a whole as-built.

Bill questioned fire safety in general. He went to see the site before the meeting and he
realized that he could not see the site. He feels there is a potential fire hazard down there
and he recalls several meetings ago the discussion about cleaning up the vegetation and
absolutely nothing has been done. Joe stated that he remembers this and his client told
him that they would clean it up. Joe will bring this to his client’s attention again. Bill
stated that they should not ignore something of safety.

Roxanne stated that the two properties above this site have been sold and they are not
going to be happy with what is there. They need to continue to be before this Board and
get this done not one month and then back 6-7 months down the road. Roxanne stated that
we are tired of this. We want it done and we have a Town Board that wants it done.
There is a lot of pressure to get this done from the residents down below the hill who are
thoroughly disgusted with this project and what is going on. The applicant come in and
met with us more than once. They have met with the Town Supervisor and the Planning
Board Chairperson and they have made commitments and they have not fulfilled those
commitments. This Town and this Board is upset with this applicant and the next step
would be let’s condemn it and tear it down. We are getting very close to this.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE ESCROW FOR TUCKER POND,
CASE #2009-23, BY $5,000.00, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE
IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS
FOLLOWS:

Fred………………………..yes
Darin………………………yes
Bill…………………………yes
Mike……………………….yes
Roxanne…………………...yes

Roxanne told Mr. Berger that he needs to take this message back to his client as strongly
as this Board can give it to him.

Myles stated that the comments about the as-builts should be considered since they do not
want to hit the gas lines, etc. Roxanne stated that she will re-focus Pete Lilholt.

Joe stated that they need the Board’s comments about the design of the retaining walls.
They don’t want to do this three or four times. Roxanne stated that they need to get the
easement done so that she can get it Peter C. Graham, Esq. for his review. Fred does not
see the need to do a full blown engineering analysis for a 5’ high retaining wall. If the
Building Inspector wants this, let him request it. Darin mentioned that they may need a
temporary easement from the neighbors to build a retaining wall on the property line. Joe
stated that if they build it the way they should this will not be a problem.

It was agreed that a note on the map for the retaining wall will suffice and if the Building
Inspector feels that he needs an engineer he will request this.

Fred questioned the soil and erosion control. He stated that basically the only thing that
you will need to protect is the pond. Joe stated that they will be putting a silt fence all the
way around it.

Charlie returned to the Board at 8:20 PM.

ZBA REFERRALS:

None.



MISCELLANEOUS:

GRAY: Case #2009-17 – Subdivison – Timeframe Extension

Applicant submitted a letter seeking an extension due to the timeframe for filing the maps
has expired. Letter stated that after all this time the Health Department is finally coming
out on September 17, 2010 to do the inspection.

MIKE MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR GRAY,
CASE #2009-17, CONDITONED UPON HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL,
RECREATION FEE OF $2,000 AND SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER MAPS AND
ONE MYLAR SIGNED BY OWNER PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD,
SECONDED BY ROXANNE. MOTION WAS PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-1.
VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:

Charlie………………..yes
Fred…………………..yes
Darin…………………abstained
Bill……………………yes
Mike…………………..yes
Roxanne………………yes

NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: DECEMBER 2, 2010 (combined November/
December, 2010 Meeting)

DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 18, 2010

NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: NOVEMBER 2, 2010

FRED MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING AT 8:30 PM, SECONDED
BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.

Respectfully submitted:


April Oneto
Planning Board Secretary