BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Marilyn Coffey, Chairperson
ALSO PRESENT: Miles Putman, Shuster Associates, Planning Board Consultant
At 7:00 pm, Chairperson Marilyn Coffey called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Marilyn then advised the public of the building’s fire exits, and roll call was taken.
ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY FRED ZIMMER, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2001 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AND THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 4, 2001 PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING AS PREPARED. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0 VOTE.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY KATHY WEITZE AND SECONDED BY FRED ZIMMER TO ACCEPT ALL VOUCHERS SUBMITTED AND READ. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH PASSED BY A 7-0 VOTE.
The only voucher submitted and read was as follows:
Kristy L. Nelson..........(9/22/01 - 10/19/01)...................................................................................
SOURA - (2001-020) - 200 Ulster Avenue, Broadway, Port Ewen, NY
Tax SBL #63.002-3-1
At this time in the meeting, there was no representation for this application.
Miles Putman briefly mentioned to the Board that they may want to ask for
a more specific delineation of the existing trees and landscaping and what
would remain after the addition went in since this is in the Overlay District.
Roxanne Pecora felt the County would have a problem with the backing out
onto a County road. John McMichael felt that the parking for this
application was way out of the zoning laws for the Industrial District,
and he didn’t believe the variance said anything about the parking.
At this time, the application was tabled until the end of the meeting to
allow time for the applicant to appear.
VICTORIAN ASSOCIATES/RONDOUT HILLS - (2000-030) - Connelly Road, The
Hills, Port Ewen, NY
Site Plan Amendment
Tax SBL #56.051-8-1 & other lots
Developer Rick Valente, Builder Mr. Lorenz, Engineer Chris Zell, and Attorney Jordan DeFlora represented the applicant at this meeting. Miles Putman read his project review dated October 19, 2001 regarding this application. A copy of the same is on file, and a copy was given to Mr. Valente. The review concluded that the revised site plan/subdivision plat drawing addressed most, but not all, of the requirements requested in the Planning Board’s resolution of December 28, 2000. Missing details include grades, rock cuts, landscaping, profiles, and the perimeter fencing. Miles suggested that a referral of the application to the Town Engineer, as per a motion made in December, not be made until the missing details are provided.
At this time Chairperson Coffey read the following motions that were made and carried at the December 28, 2000 Planning Board meeting regarding this application:
MARILYN COFFEY MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY KATHY WEITZE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD NOT APPROVE THE MAP AS SUBMITTED AND THAT THE BOARD SEND IT BACK TO VICTORIAN ASSOCIATES AND ASK THEM TO PREPARE A FULL, OR ASK THEIR ENGINEERS, TO PREPARE A FULL SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION PLAT SET ON SECTIONS A & B ONLY TO INCLUDE EXISTING CONDITIONS, WATER, SEWER, LIGHTING, FENCING, ROADS, ROAD PROFILES & GRADES, PARKING, TOPO, PHYSICAL FEATURES, PROPOSED CONDITIONS IF THEY ARE PROPOSING TO IMPROVE ANYTHING, PAVEMENT, STORM/SANITARY WATER, LANDSCAPING, AND HYDRANTS. IN ADDITION, THE PLANS SHOULD SHOW THE STREAM AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD, AND THE SECTION LINE BETWEEN B & C SHOULD BE STRAIGHTENED OUT SO THE LINE DOES NOT GO THROUGH BUILDING B4. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.
ROXANNE PECORA THEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE, THAT AN ESCROW ACCOUNT BE ESTABLISHED ON THE APPLICATION AND ONCE THE PLANNING BOARD HAS A NEW SET OF MAPS IN PLACE, THEY BE REFERRED TO CHAZEN ENGINEERING FOR REVIEW. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 6-0 VOTE.
Mr. Valente felt that their engineers had addressed all of the above
and submitted the same.
Board Member Russ Shultis stated that, after reviewing Victorian Associates’ revised submission, it was obvious to him that the information was inadequate based on the motion that was made in December. He noted that a lot of the requested information was shown, but a lot wasn’t. Some issues he found, based on an on-site inspection, were as follows:
· There were a few manholes on the site that were not located
on the map.
· There are a couple of water valves on site that were not on the map.
· There are a few utility boxes on site that were not on the map.
· There are no notations for electric lines on the map.
Also, regarding the parking issue which was a major concern at the public hearing, Russ, after counting the units in Section A & B as well as the number of parking areas in each section, believed the parking met the zoning, but felt that since the Board knew there was a problem with the parking , it should address it with additional locations if possible. Roxanne Pecora did not see where additional off-site parking could be obtained from and if Russ’ figures were accurate and it was within the zoning, she didn’t know what else additional the Board could require. Russ brought up the point that if you followed the section division line between Section B & C, which the Board asked Victorian Associates to correct so that it didn’t run through Unit B4, you would see a jog in the line and then an area with a number 7 next to it in Section C. He added that there was some thought or mention of using this area for additional parking for the upper section. After looking at the map, Roxanne felt maybe the center medium of Section B could be used for diagonal parking spaces. Chairperson Coffey asked Mr. Valente if he would be open to making additional parking in these areas being discussed. Mr. Valente, in response to the area being mentioned by Russ Shultis, stated only if the Board could show him were he could relocate the building. Russ Shultis stated that initially there was no building located in this area and in addition, there appears to be a run-off issue near Unit B5 because of the rock outcrop and drainage. Existing drainage in this area was discussed and Russ Shultis will investigate this further. Mr. Valente did note that they have added parking in the front, a parking lot by the model, which they have agreed to leave. Russ Shultis noted that this was true, however, the parking was located at one end of the development with an uphill climb to the units at the other end. Mr. Valente indicated that he would revisit this matter and maybe in Sections C & D there might be an opportunity to put in some additional parking. He also suggested that maybe the Homeowners’ Association could identify an area in Section A & B for additional parking and do it on their own merits. It was Russ Shultis’ opinion that the parking issue should be addressed by the Planning Board for the approval of Sections A & B. Chairperson Coffey agreed. Fred Zimmer stated that if the applicant was in compliance with the zoning, there wasn’t much more the Board could do. He noted that if the people in individual units have more than 2 cars, the problem would then be somewhat self-induced. Fred felt that if there is a parking problem in Sections A & B, it should be handled through the Homeowners’ Association.
It was also noted that the motion from December was for Victorian Associates
to prepare a full site plan and subdivision plat set on Sections A &
B only and the submission received includes A & B as well as C &
D. Mr. Valente stated that this was his decision since he felt this
was a was to identify problems relating from C to A & B. It was
felt that C was shown for conceptual purposes. Mr. Zell indicated
that C & D were shown on the submission only in the same locations
that they were shown on the original site plan. Russ Shultis felt
there should be some notation on the map that says if these maps are signed
its only for A & B. At this time, Russ Shultis shared with the
Planning Board information that he was made aware of this day by the Building
Dept. Building permits were requested for 2 units in Section D which
according to the initial site plan was approved for 3 units, so now Section
D is being changed, and based on this alone Russ didn’t think C & D
should be shown on the map. Mr. Valente was informed that he could
submit a site plan amended application for C & D simultaneously on
a separate plat, but the current application is for the purpose of getting
A & B straightened out. Attorney Jordan DeFlora noted that there
was a legend on the map for the purpose of excluding any consideration
of C & D in this application. He reiterated that C & D were
included just to show that the lot lines were moved.
Fred Zimmer was concerned about the physical features (buildings) that have changed locations as well as the topography which is not what it was supposed to be on the site plan. Fred wondered what had changed with this topography and how this would affect C & D. He felt the topography and grades needed to be shown on the map.
Engineer Chris Zell stated that it would be a very big expense for Mr. Valente to provided new contour lines and topo on the sections that have been developed. He wondered what the purpose of doing this was since the Board could not recontour the existing sections. Fred Zimmer stated that the Planning Board wanted a record of what was out there since they knew that it wasn’t anywhere close to what was designed. Russ Shultis stated that since buildings were not built where they were supposed to be, this could also change the contours. He felt that the Planning Board needed the contours so when all the plans were complete and sent off to the Board’s engineer for review she would have a complete picture to base her decision upon. Mr. Zell argued that the Planning Board wouldn’t be changing the existing roads. Kathy Weitze commented that one of the points the Planning Board was making was that topo in Section B & A, as built, would affect C & D. In addition, topos were requested for the Heavenly Valley and Connelly Village applications, so a precedence had been set.
At this time, Mr. DeFlora stated that Victorian Associates is at a point in time in this development where the road that presently exists for A & B needs to be blacktopped. It is his understanding that his client met with the Town Highway Superintendent last week and has a contractor scheduled to blacktopped the road so that the folks in A & B can have a nice road for this winter. Mr. DeFlora’s concern was that the requirement of topos or road profiles was going to conceivably stop this large expenditure by his client on behalf of the Homeowners’ Association. Fred Zimmer felt the paving could still occur. Chairperson Coffey asked Mr. DeFlora about the road specifications that the Board requested in July when they understood Victorian Associates was going out to bid on the same since she did not feel the handwritten note received in reply was hardly the specifications of the road. Mr. DeFlora noted that these specifications were only for the repaving of the road. Russ Shultis stated that it was his impression that when a complete set of plans were submitted, Nancy Clark would review it prior to any paving taking place to make sure that Victorian Associates was in compliance with the specifications. Other Board members did not agree since this was a private road. Russ Shultis asked Mr. Valente if he would fix the road if it gets tore up during the construction of C & D. Mr. Valente stated that it would depend on who tears it up. Russ Shultis then asked Mr. Valente if the Homeowners’ Association received their specifications per the agreement with the Attorney General. Mr. Valente stated that he gave them copies of the Town’s specifications. Mr. DeFlora added that the Town’s Highway Superintendent was brought in to assure the Homeowners’ Association that the repaving was being done according to the Town’s specifications. He also stated that he spoke with the Attorney General’s Office that morning on this issue and as far as the Attorney General was concerned they should get the blacktopping done as quickly as possible and if the person in the Town who is in charge of highways had walked the property and had discussed what was going on, the Attorney General believed that this was more than sufficient. It was Russ Shultis’ feeling that the Homeowners’ Association should be involved in this matter and wondered if Victorian Associates came to an agreement with the them. It was the other Planning Board members’ feeling that this was not a Planning Board matter. Russ voiced his opinion that he thought it was a concern of the Board that an agreement be worked out with the Homeowners’ Association and the applicant before any paving takes place.
Continued discussion was had as to why the Planning Board wanted profiles and topo shown on the map. Fred Zimmer felt that the Board could probably live with the topo being 50’ from C& D going into A & B, but he really wanted to see a road profile. After some additional discussion, Fred noted that the applicant was going to have to do a topo for C & D and if they elect to take the topo from flying it and photographing it they would get the whole thing. Kathy Weitze & the other Board members felt this was a good idea. The road profile sheet will be updated.
Other items of concern were that the new submission has roads (Munn
Road/Hamilton) on the map that don’t exist. Russ Shultis requested
that this be updated and the fencing be shown as well. In addition,
it was the Planning Board’s feeling that no building permits be issued
for Sections C & D since it is their understanding that Victorian Associates
is changing what was previously approved and, therefore, must come back
before the Board for a site plan amendment for these two (2) sections.
Discussion was had as to whether the Planning Board wanted
two separate site plan amendment applications, one for A & B and another for C & D, or if they should all be combined under one application. The Planning Board members, with Miles’ guidance, leaned towards their original resolution. It was their feeling that they should be moving and working towards getting the business with Sections A & B settled.
Miles Putman suggested that the notation on the plat regarding Sections C & D be changed to read ‘that the buildings and improvements shown on this map for Sections C & D are proposed and are shown for reference only and are not to indicate approved lots’.
The next issue was the fire hydrant in front of B6, Unit 1. The Planning Board requested that this hydrant be moved back from the road 3-4’ and to the left side of #57 8-10’ as per Fire Chief Clark Mains letter dated Sept. 20, 2001 and Port Ewen Water & Sewer Superintendent Don Kiernan’s letter dated Oct. 9, 2001. Mr. Valente agreed to move the fire hydrant.
MARILYN COFFEY MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ROXANNE PECORA , THAT:
· THE NOTATION WORDING ON THE VICTORIAN ASSOCIATES PLAT BE CHANGED
TO READ ‘STREETS, BUILDINGS, AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON SECTIONS C &
D ON THIS MAP ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND DO NOT APPLY APPROVED BUILDING
SITES OR APPROVED BUILDING LOTS FOR SALE’,
· THE FIRE HYDRANT BY UNIT #57 BE MOVED BACK FROM THE ROAD 3-4’ AND TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE UNIT 8-10’,
· THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE OTHER REMAINING MISSING ITEMS AS DELINEATED IN THE MOTION AT THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 28, 2000 BE PLACED ON THE PLAT,
· UPON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ESCROW ACCOUNT AND THE RECEIPT OF A COMPLETED PLAT, THE PLAT WILL BE FORWARDED TO CHAZEN ENGINEERING, THE PLANNING BOARD’S ENGINEER, FOR REVIEW, AND
· SECTIONS C & D MAY BE SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE APPLICATION AND PROCEED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A & B.
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0
SOURA - (2001-020) - 200 Ulster Avenue, Broadway, Port Ewen, NY
Tax SBL #63.002-3-1
Mr. & Mrs. Soura were present at this meeting. Miles Putman of Shuster Associates gave his project review for this case. A copy of the same is on file and a copy was given to the applicant. Discussion was had regarding parking, landscaping, lighting, and signage. Mrs. Soura indicated that there will be no additional lighting, the sign will be a neon sign in the window, and no trees will be taken down. The Soura’s were advised to have their maps revised to omit the proposed paved parking, show parking in the driveway, show the existing trees and landscaping, and put notations on the map that state ‘No Additional Lighting’ and ‘ Sign To Be a Neon Window Sign’.
RUSS SHULTIS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE, THAT THE PLANNING
BOARD WAIVE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS APPLICATION. ALL MEMBERS
PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0 VOTE.
ROXANNE PECORA MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY LINDA SMYTHE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD REFER THE SOURA APPLICATION TO THE ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR THEIR REVIEW PROVIDED THAT A REVISED PLAT INDICATING THE LANDSCAPING, THE CHANGE IN PARKING, AND A NOTATION ABOUT THE SIGN AND LIGHTING IS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN FAVOR THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED BY A 7-0 VOTE.
Presubmission Conf. - Keane (Soper Road)
Mr. Keane indicated that he purchased a 13 acre parcel of land on Soper
Road at the County tax auction which he and his sister would like to divide
in half and also put in a private road. Planning Board members reviewed
the enlarged tax map provided and advised Mr. Keane to check with an engineer
regarding the road/driveway feasibility because of the slope. Road
frontage requirements were reviewed. The Planning Board indicated
to Mr. Keane that his project was doable and advised him that when he had
his plat drawn to have the USGS topography enlarged on it.
ZBA Referrals - None
A list of monthly correspondence received by the Planning Board was
given to each Board member.
Chairperson Coffey noted that she got a telephone call from Mr. Braunstein
about signing his maps on his lot line adjustment application (Case #2000-27)
which was approved in December 2000. It was the Planning Board’s
feeling that since the two month time frame for signing and filing had
elapsed this case should be placed back on next month’s agenda for review
and reapproval. Chairperson Coffey will call the applicant and advise
him of the same.
Board Member Russ Shultis noted that he talked with John Davison of
Brinnier & Larios, who was working on the lighting issues for Connelly
Village. All the other issues from last month’s review of Connelly
Village’s plat have been taken care of. Trash will be curbside pickup;
it will not require a dumpster. The erosion control during construction
will fall under the stormwater protection plan.
Russ Shultis noted that he made Mr. Navara aware of the zoning that
does not allow driveway access to a business through the residential portion
of the same lot.
Board Member Russ Shultis met with the Letteris regarding their landscaping.
Russ noted that Mr. Letteri was in full agreement with the landscaping
condition and understood that the work had to be completed. The reason
this work hadn’t been done was that Mr. Letteri had been getting a lot
of grief from his neighbor in the back, Mr. DeJohn. Russ Shultis
plans to set up an appointment with Mr. DeJohn to explain to him that what
the Board required as a condition must be fulfilled by Mr. Letteri.
Russ stated that Mr. Letteri has agreed that come spring the option of
either a stockade fence or trees in the back would take place. Regarding
turning the existing account at Rondout Savings Bank into an escrow account,
Russ noted that Mrs. Letteri would not agree to this because of some issues
she has with the Town. Russ did not see the money issue being a problem
here and noted that the Rondout Savings Bank would not release this money
without the Town’s approval.
WITH NO OTHER BUSINESS PENDING, LINDA SMYTHE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED
BY KATHY WEITZE, TO CLOSE THE MEETING. ALL MEMBERS PRESENT WERE IN
FAVOR OF THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED.
Kristy L. Nelson