TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 23, 2006
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Linda Smythe (left at 9:30 p.m.)
Fred Zimmer (arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
Dennis Suraci – Excused
ALSO PRESENT : Myles Putman, Shuster Associates
At 7:10 p.m., Chairperson Roxanne Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order 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 from the September 28, 2006 Planning Board Meeting reviewed.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 PLANNING BOARD MEEETING, SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Minutes from September 25, 2006 Planning Board Workshop Meeting reviewed.
LINDA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING, ON THE STREET INTERCONNECTION PLAN, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Daily Freeman – Grassi – Public Hearing Notice………………………….$ 13.11
Daily Freeman – Joint Workshop Public Hearing Notice………………….$ 7.52
Daily Freeman - LaManna – Public Hearing Notice……………………….$ 12.61
Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP – Mountain View (Bellaire Ridge)….$ 465.00
Shuster Associates – September, 2006 Services……………………………$ 2,000.00
April Oneto – (Secretarial Services)..…………………………………………50 Hours
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS AS READ,
Page 1 of 15
SECONDED BY LINDA . ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
RUSS MADE A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
CHUCK A MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, SECONDED BY JOHN AND ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
BIRCHEZ - Case #2006-07 (Subdivision) & BIRCHES – Case #2006-08 (Site Plan)
Major Subdivision – Senior Housing Complex – 15-51 Sorbello Lane;
Hiltebrandt Lane & Riverview Ave., Port Ewen (Ulster Park P.O.)
Myles Putman reviewed Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Nadine Shadlock, Esq. and Ed Hernandez, PE, present representing applicant.
Mr. Hernandez stated that at the last meeting we discussed the scope of this analysis and what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. They obtained some quotes from three different companies. One quote they received was almost $25,000.00 and another proposal from another company that was substantially lower recommended for a project of this magnitude to do the view shed map. That has been completed and he handed copies out to board members. They then suggested identifying up to five locations indicated by Myles and do a line of site evaluation based on that. According to them this is typically what is sufficient for a project such as this. Mr. Hernandez stated that if they get into photo-simulations of each of these we are talking an enormous amount of money and if they get into actually having to go on the water we get into a lot of money. They are asking to be allowed to do what is identified in the proposal that he has provided to the Board which includes the view shed analysis map (which is completed), line of site evaluations from five locations that will show how much of the building can be seen and then they will summarize that with a design report. It is slightly smaller since they do not do photo simulations but they do line of site analysis which their consultant is saying is normally reasonable for a project of this magnitude and that they don’t require on river field work. They do it from the banks of the shore in various locations which will still give them a good feel.
Mr. Hernandez provided a site plan showing the easements that were asked for as well as the building elevations from different angles. They are asking to be allowed to narrow
the scope of the visual analysis slightly and then they will come prepared to the next meeting with that analysis completed and the report completed for the Board to review.
Discussion took place regarding the requirements for the other side of the river to review what development takes place on this side of the river. Roxanne explained that any development along the river front requires review by the local Waterfront Revitalization Board and in this case the Esopus/Lloyd Statewide Area of Scenic Significance. This is looked at and if we don’t do the due diligence we will have the potential for an Article 78 Action. Mr. Hernandez agreed that this is required by law but further stated that the Planning Board can set the magnitude of the requirements. Roxanne stated that what we asked was that we look at the view shed piece of this to determine if we are going to have to do a further in depth analysis than what Somerset did. We have to determine what is viewed from the river – it is a three story building. Nadine stated that even if it is to some extent able to be seen from whatever locations or designated there is an entire procedure for mitigation of those impacts by use of landscaping, non reflective glass, perhaps a green roof on the building, etc. Nadine stated that they are not happy with having to spend additional money for this with the project but they understand that there is a procedure with SEQR but they just want to be sure that they satisfy what is required and not go beyond that point. She feels that they have made a very good start on that process and they would like to limit what they have to do going forward and they would like to focus their attention and economic resources in other areas. They would like to have a win/win for the municipality but they do not want to spend all of their money on taking pictures of things that in the end we say how do we mitigate this?
John stated that this project will be viewed by many people from the river and it is going to make an impression of our town. We are going to put our senior citizens in here and what it looks like is going to make a difference. Roxanne stated that we have to look at it. Nadine agrees that the Board has to demonstrate that they have looked at this issue and then the Board acts in it’s best judgment. They believe that they are building an important project but they have a number of restraints, not just money, but time and they are heading towards some very serious time deadlines. They are very anxious to try to move forward if they can and work as best they can.
Russ questioned if this property would be subject to the Waterfront Advisory Board Review and the Environmental Board Review. Myles stated that it is subject to the Waterfront Advisory Board Review and the Environmental Board Review is at the option of the Planning Board. Russ is curious about what they would want to see as far as visual impacts for this project. He stated that he would hate to have the Planning Board recommend one thing and have the Waterfront Advisory Board come back and say they would like to see something else. Myles stated that in the past the Waterfront Advisory Board comments have primarily dealt with issues of site disturbance and sedimentation. Those have been their comments and this is said not to predict what they will say when they get this referral but that has been the record so far. Nadine questioned when this would be referred to the Waterfront Advisory Board. Roxanne stated that this will be done at the time we schedule the Public Hearing. John stated that he will apprise the Waterfront Advisory Board of this application at their meeting tomorrow evening.
Mr. Hernandez requested that if this Board feels that the revised scope they are proposing
is reasonable that it be approved and they get their comments since they are a separate Board. Nadine stated that they would appreciate it if John could relate to them what the scope is that has been approved by this Board so they can have a fixed range of what they are working on. Roxanne requested that John call her on Wednesday following the Waterfront Advisory Board Meeting to let her know what their thoughts are on this so she can get back to Mr. Hernandez or Ms. Shadlock with this information.
John questioned the density issue. Applicant stated that this is the Senior Center not the subdivisions and they are going for a zoning change on this. Nadine stated that their plan is to remain with the four lots and seek an amendment of the Senior Overlay. Most of the density issues have to do with easements/roads. They plan to seek a revision of the Senior Overlay to accommodate this. Nadine stated that they have met with Peter Graham on this issue. Roxanne questioned if Peter Graham gave them an idea regarding the timeframe that he would get back to the Board. Nadine felt that they should both follow up with Peter Graham. Nadine stated that what we need to accomplish could be done either by a variance or by an amendment of the overlay but the process is very similar and Nadine stated that in speaking with Peter it would be more of a benefit to the municipality to have the law in place so if someone else wants to come in and build a senior project they don’t have to go through the whole process again. Roxanne stated that this is what Dan Shuster told her. He did not recommend the variance. He recommended the change of the law.
Chuck stated that we are talking about the Hudson River which is a national historic treasure and we do have to take responsibility for anything that comes in front of us that can be viewed from it. We have to do the due diligence. He feels that from Kingston to Albany you can see two thirds of the building. He feels that last month we graciously knocked out several vantage points that Myles recommended initially and now the applicant is coming before us with a proposal from a consultant and asking us to move on the consultant’s proposal. He feels that clearly the lighthouse is one of the points that they want to knock out and it is clearly affected. Roxanne stated that last month we did not make a motion as to exactly what we want them to do. Roxanne stated that the Board has to tell the applicant what we want them to do.
Myles questioned if they had a map that was un-vegitated. Mr. Hernandez stated that he does and he gave one to Myles. He stated that the map he presented shows no trees and no buildings. Mr. Hernandez stated that they would basically use that map to identify five locations that are visible and they would do a line of site analysis which would basically be a profile showing exactly how the land is and what you could see of the building from that location. This is what they are asking to be allowed to do. Myles stated that he would like to see two of those locations to be to the north of the site. The lighthouse is one and then possibly one from Rhinecliff at the rivers edge near the train station or near the pedestrian trestle because you are in that yellow zone where you can possibly see the second floor of the building. The other three points you would go further south on Morton Road and pick one of the three sites like Wilderstein in which you would have a view due east. Mr. Hernandez stated that they would be happy to do those locations with a line of site profile.
Chuck questioned if the line of site profile was different from a visualization study. Mr. Henrandez stated that it is part of the visualization study. It includes a profile through this. He stated that line of site tells you what is visible of the building. Photo simulation would be to take the line of site and actually due a rendering of the building from that location. The line of site already tells you how much of that building is visible. They are asking that they not be required to do the photo architectural rendering. It is very expensive and it does not tell you any more of the building that is visible, it just gives you a photograph. Roxanne questioned Myles if he was comfortable with the line of site. Myles stated that he is comfortable with the line of site because of the information he was presented this evening shows there has been a preliminary analysis done which shows where a portion of the building that is visible and the places that stand out for him are the ones in yellow.
Myles reviewed the five line of site locations: Kingston/Rondout Lighthouse, from east shore of Hudson River at Rhinecliff (and Myles suggested maybe going to point where pedestrian overpass crosses over the Rhinecliff Hotel), due east look at Wilderstein, Linwood, Ellers Isle (?) or Windcliff all of which are concentrated close to each other on Morton Road or South Mill Road. This is his preliminary list. Lighthouse and Rhinecliff are definitely on the list and out of the remaining four pick three that you can get access to. Roxanne questioned if the Board was comfortable with this list. There were no comments from the Board members.
Mr. Hernandez stated that they will provide a line of site profile for each of those locations. Myles requested ledger size of the other two maps underneath the vegetated view shed map. Mr. Hernandez will provide this.
Mr. Hernandez questioned that at the next meeting if we accept the visualization report is it possible at the next meeting that a negative declaration will be declared and SEQR will be closed. Myles stated that we would like to hear from our engineers on this project. We will not make a SEQR determination on things like site disturbance, utilities and things of this nature without the Town Planning Board engineers input. Roxanne stated that we do not usually make our SEQR determination until after the Public Hearing. Roxanne stated that we are going to need the soil erosion control plans, water/sewer connections, lighting plan, landscaping plan etc. We will need all of this before we refer it to the engineers. Fred stated that this is required before we go to Public Hearing. Fred stated that it probably would not hurt to send it to the engineers before we go to the Public Hearing. Roxanne stated that if they come in next time with Preliminary Plat they should have all of that. Presently they have Sketch Plan approval. They were informed
that the next Planning Board Meeting will be December 14, 2006 and the deadline date for submissions will be November 30, 2006.
ROXANNE MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY UNDER SEQR FOR BIRCHEZ ASSOCIATES: “BIRCHES AT ESOPUS”, CASE #2006-07 & 08, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MOUNTAINVIEW (BELLAIRE RIDGE, LLC) – Case #2005-05) – Major re-
Subdivision; Salem Street, Mountainview Avenue, May Park Terrace,
Myles Putman read Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Applicant represented by Terri Hahn and Chuck Genck.
Roxanne thanked Terri Hahn and Chuck Genck for going to Planning Board Attorney, Peter Graham, with her, Chuck Snyder and the Town Supervisor in which we went over all the issues including the road issues. Roxanne stated that Peter Graham, Esq. has written a letter to the school district at the Board’s request which they were given a copy. In the next to last paragraph of the letter, it is stated that the Town Planning Board can not consider as part of the subdivision review process the financial impact on the school district in taking on more school children. This criteria is not part of the subdivision review process. It tells them that they have been informed of this subdivision since February of 2005 and that there has not been a lack of communication. It is a perceived lack of communication on their part and we will see what happens. Mountainview will maintain a 20’ right-of-way that is coincident with the sewer district and the existing road that services that to provide potential access to the school district. Hopefully the school district will see its potential and accept that right-of-way. It is offered for dedication and whoever picks it up that is how we will set it up on the plat. Roxanne stated that they are going to include all of this, the detail all of the work that went into this so that we have the history as recommended by Peter Graham, Esq. as part of the SEQR and we will move on.
Terri stated that they are here tonight for a request for the waiver of the street length and the number of lots. Under the Town Code Section 107-21 there are two different kinds of streets – temporary dead-ends and street connections and permanent dead-ends. They have actually three street connections that they are proposing – one to Port Ewen Housing, one to the Town Hall property and one to the potential extension down from Agnes Street associated with the right-of-way they originally thought they had control
over. At this point what they really have are temporary dead-ends and street continuations and the subdivision code does allow for this sort of thing provided that there is a turnaround and there is a potential for future street connections. Based on their last meeting Terri stated that the Board may or may not choose to look at these roads as temporary dead ends and you may choose to look at them as permanent dead-ends. In this case they need to request a waiver under Section 107-7 which enables the Planning Board under certain conditions and based on specifics the Board chooses to allow for the extension of a road length and the number of lots serviced by that. One of the conditions for that waiver is that the internal road would have a loop and they already propose a loop system, therefore, the extension of any other road that would be the dead end could be measured from that loop and at no time would they exceed that additional 1200 feet. In addition, based on discussion last time we have three street connections and they are also proposing a boulevard at the front entrance. She provided an 8 ½ by 11 picture of what the boulevard would look like with two lanes on either side and she believes that Myles has recommended that they extend it a little further into the site which they have no problem with. Teri stated that given the unusual circumstances they are asking for a waiver under Section 107-7 to enable a permanent dead end street to exceed 1200 linear feet and 20 lots. Fred stated that they still only have 2 lanes. Terri stated that this is correct there will be two 20’ lanes as a boulevard.
Roxanne stated that she spoke with Peter Lilholts the Planning Board Engineer from Clough, Harbour, and she stated that they really do not have an issue with the boulevard because of the future of the street interconnections if they go. Fred felt that this project could be done in phases i.e. 22 lots with one entrance until the other development goes forward. There are a total of 31 lots being proposed.
Following discussion Chuck felt that the boulevard might not be necessary. He would like to see this project move forward. Fred suggested breaking it down into two phases of 24 lots and then 7 lots. Fred said we could waive two lots giving them 24 lots instead of 22 and they can build the additional 7 lots when they have a second means of access. Mr. Genck stated that the profit on the project is on the last 6-7 houses. The first 25 houses you are paying bills. So if there is a chance that the other project does not go forward you are setting it up for failure to a certain degree by doing that. Roxanne agrees that they should not be made dependent upon some other applicant’s project. Fred stated that he is not comfortable approving 31 lots with one access and the boulevard does not satisfy his concerns. John agrees with Fred and would like to see a phasing approach. Russ stated that based on the letter of October 12th it sheds new light on the subject. He agrees with Fred that if this was in front of the Board for this subdivision in itself he thinks the Board in general would have a hard time approving a subdivision with one access. He agrees with Fred on this point. He goes back to what he said about Port Ewen Housing and he feels that both projects should be looked at as a coordinated review because he feels that one project depends on the other. Russ has reservations about the boulevard and lot 23. His concern is the driveway entrance is 70’ from the Mountainview access and as a Planning Board we have to give consideration to the fact that there are a number of parcels along Mountainview that still have the potential to be subdivided and built out. He would suspect that in the future the amount of traffic on Mountainview will increase substantially and he would not want to see a problem with trying to get into lot 23. He feels that we should not just limit ourselves to this project that we have to look at the future development and what bearing they may have on the traffic on Mountainview. Chuck questioned how you are going to bring two applicants to the table for a coordinated review. Russ stated that he does not want the Town to get into a situation where one project does not go forward so this project can not build out like they would like to and we don’t have the proper sewer/water hookups like we would like to have. These two projects can give us all that so he thinks the two projects should be looked at together. Russ questioned Fred about whether there is a considerable difference in the traffic from 30 houses to 50 houses. Fred stated that there is. Russ stated that he would like to see an access from Mountainview to 9W not using Clay Road because it passes by the school and he would like to avoid any increase in traffic in this area.
Myles stated that coordinated review is to get all the agencies on the same page when you are looking at individual projects. When you have two project sites side by side you are looking at cumulative impacts and you are looking at the segmentation issue. That is all under SEQR, however, you can not force the other developer to kind of coordinate their subdivision approval in line with the applicant who is in front of us because you are dealing with different groups of people who are not effectively talking to each other. They have been told that each project needs each other for either traffic or utility access but that does not guarantee that you can bring both developers to the table at the same time and try to get them to coordinate their plans. Terri stated that their responsibility is to show the connections which she thinks they have done. They actually redesigned their project so that it fits their connections so that they know the right-of-ways work so that they can connect but beyond that they do not have the ability to make that happen. She feels that this project needs to be looked at on its own merits. Roxanne repeated that our own engineer has verbally told her on the phone that there is no issue from an engineering perspective with the boulevard for this development because this is flat land. You have future street interconnections that are proposed that may happen in the future and from that perspective the engineer does not have an issue. If the Board wants this in writing, we will get it in writing. Roxanne stated that she does not have an issue with the boulevard and that this applicant has been taken through the loop on a redesign of this site before they got to sketch. We have had the issue with the school throughout this whole process and she thinks that it is time that this Board loosened up a little and listened to what the engineer said verbally and let’s proceed and give them the waiver. Linda agrees with Roxanne. Fred questioned the boulevard. Terri stated that there will be 40’ of pavement plus shoulders separated by a 10’ island with cut throughs for where the driveways will be so there would be left and right movements as you go through. They can make them however long you require. Myles stated that he would be comfortable with the first 600’ which takes us up to the first loop.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT THE WAIVER OF 600 FEET PER SUBDIVISION CODE SECTION 107-21-D AND PROVIDE A BOULEVARD TO THE FIRST INTERSECTION IN THE LOOP AND THREE FUTURE STREET INTERCONNECTIONS, SECONDED BY LINDA. MOTION DID NOT PASS WITH A VOTE OF 3-2-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Discussion continued regarding the second access possibilities. Applicant will speak again with Mr. Berg regarding the Agnes Street interconnection. There is a lot between Agnes Street and their parcel. They are going to try to purchase this piece of property.
There second option is to go see the Town Board. Mr. Genck questioned the possibility of a favorable letter from the Planning Board to the Town Board regarding the issues. Roxanne stated that we can write them a letter to present to the Town Board. Applicant will approach Mr. Berg first and Roxanne will wait to hear from them before the Planning Board writes a recommendation to the Town Board.
Russ clarified Section 107-21-D.3 and is says that no permanent dead end may be constructed that provides access to more than 20 building lots
PATRICK – Case #2006-13 – Major re-subdivision – 92 Parker Avenue/Lane,
Myles Putman reviewed Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Michael Moriello, Esq, present along with Christopher Zell and applicant, Barbara Patrick.
There was some confusion regarding July maps completed by Mr. Zell. Planning Board does have the maps in the file but copy was not given to Myles for his review. Circulation for Lead Agency went out and the timeframe has ended. Mr. Moriello stated that they have all of what the Board asked for i.e. flag lot, road frontage. Mr. Moreillo stated that they met with Alan Larkin at the site and he showed them where he wants the curb cuts to come out on the road. The Board will need a letter from him. Escrow Account has been set up. Ms. Patrick stated that the Fire Department told her the same thing and the Board will need a letter stating this.
LINDA MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY UNDER SEQR FOR PATRICK SUBDIVISION, CASE #2006-13, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 76-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
HEAVENLY VALLEY – PHASE II – Case #2001 (Reference #1988-25) – Major
Subdivision – Peters Pass, Four Sisters Lane and Scott Street, Port Ewen
Myles Putman reviewed Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Mr. Danielle present for applicant. Myles stated that there is a very strong case that the Traffic Study will have to be redone because the conclusions that were made initially were based on Scott Street being developed as full vehicular access.
Mr. Danielle stated that it is 10 lots less than originally proposed so it is now 31. There are less cut and fills and they are not going through the wetlands. Myles asked if Berger Engineering could summarize this. Mr. Danielle stated that this would be done.
Fred would like to see the environmental impact updated and we should get some kind of update on the change in the traffic. He stated it should be less but the distribution will be different. Myles stated that we can ask Clough, Harbour to do this and bill it back on the Escrow or Mr. Danielle can ask Mr. Berger to try to find someone who can work with the original study and rework things.
Planning Board needs to establish an escrow for this applicant. Fred questioned if anything was worked out regarding going through the Town Hall property. Mr. Danielle stated that they have worked out something. Roxanne stated that we need to know who will be doing work and the timing of the road construction. Mr. Danielle will have Mr. Berger address these issues for the next meeting. Following the next meeting if the Board is satisfied we will send the Traffic Study to Clough, Harbour for their review.
This will give Clough, Harbour a better sense of what is happening in this area of Port Ewen because we may ask them to use this as a baseline model to look at some of the other projects as they come on line or get reactivated. Fred stated as part of the environmental update there should be a drainage study. Applicant informed that the next meeting will be December 14, 2006 and the deadline is November 30, 2006.
C & M SACKETT DEVELOPMENT, LLC – Case #2006-26 – Minor re-subdivision
196 Sackett Street, Hamilton Court, Kline Lane, Port Ewen
Myles Putman reviewed Shuster Associates Review, copy placed in file, copy given to Christopher Zell, applicants representative. Myles stated that he was verbally informed tonight that Alan Larkin, Highway Superintendent, has approved access off of Kline Lane for lot B. Letter will need to be provided. Board will need something from Don Kiernan, Water/Sewer Superintendent, stating that he is alright with the design for the 10’ utility easement proposed along the southerly boundary of Lot 3A. What is needed is the topographic details and the disturbance information for Lot 3B and also revised disturbance information for Lot 3A. Application and Short EAF needs to be signed by the owner and clearly identify the duly authorized officer of the LLC. Myles does not feel that any action should be taken until letter is received from the Sewer & Water Superintendent and the application and EAF are signed by owner and authorized officer is identified.
Roxanne stated that we need a letter from the Highway Superintendent approving access. Mr. Zell stated that he was told that they have met with the Highway Superintendent and the Water & Sewer Superintendent and he will obtain letters from them. He stated that C & M are the owners of Lot 2 but they have sold Lot 1 and they had prepared a storm water management plan for Lot 1 and Lot 2 which he assumes will be amended to include Lot 3A and 3B. They will provide the topographical information with the next submission and everything else that is required by the Board.
Russ is not comfortable with the proposal and the easement through another piece of property. He does not like them. He has concerns because we have had problems with the storm last year with Lot 1 and 2 with runoff that ended up on Sackett Street and the street below. As pointed out in Myles review, the soils are classified as high erosion hazard and he thinks that given there is a 20+ apartment complex on Tucker Pond he thinks that this lot would be a nice buffer between that project if it ever gets completed and the residents along Hamilton Street.
Mr. Zell stated that concerning the erosion on Lot 1 and 2 the original contractor did not install the erosion measures that he was supposed to. After that they prepared a storm water management plan which the second contractor did follow and they had no further problems. Mr. Zell stated that if the proper measures were in effect as required he does not feel that there would have been a problem with the storm mentioned. Mr. Zell stated that as far as the easement they are common practice and it is done all the time. He also stated that to ask one land owner to operate as a buffer for another land owner he does not think that this should be a consideration. He believes that the Board should look at the project on its own merits.
John is also concerned about the erosion problems. Fred questioned if they spoke to Don Kiernan. Applicant stated that they have and he will obtain a letter from him. Fred questioned the status of the applicant dedicating to the town the area of the turnaround. Myles stated that the map says to be conveyed. Mr. Zell is not sure so he will check on this. Fred stated that if it was not transferred the last time we are going to want it transferred this time.
LERNER – Case #2006-25 – Lot line Adjustment -137 Marin Sweedish Road,
West Esopus (New Paltz P.O.)
Myles Putman reviewed Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file, copy given to applicant. Applicant Steven and Nina Lerner represented by Rob Gabrielli.
Russ questioned the status of Martin Sweedish Road. It says 25’ from center line reserve for and/or offered to the Town for highway purpose. He questioned if this is being deeded. He is wondering while offered to is in there. Mr. Zell stated that if the Town asks for it then that is what they have to do. He feels that it is not up to anybody to give that land to them unless they deem they need it. It is being reserved but they are not going to build anything on it but until someone asks for the land it stays that way. The question is does the Town at the present time want that 25’ that is why everybody puts those notes on it. It is being reserved for and offered to whether they take it this year, next year or the following year it is being reserved. The Town needs to say to Mr. Lerner that they would like to have that 25’ and they would like to have the deed for it. The offer is there.
RUSS MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SEND A MEMO TO THE TOWN BOARD IN REFERENCE TO THIS MAP AND HAVE THEM DISCUSS THE POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF THAT 25 FEET, SECONDED BY FRED. MOTION FAILED 3-2. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Chuck questioned Russ what his concern is regarding this road reservation. Roxanne stated that it is reserved and at such time that the Town feels they would need that piece of road they would approach the applicant for that. Fred stated that the State pockets are deeper than the Towns. Fred thinks that we are going to have to get in touch with the Town Board to see if they want to take possession. Mr. Zell stated that this will be a filed map and at such that the Town feels that they would like to exercise that option they could go to the owner of the property and tell them that they would like to acquire that piece of property.
Applicant provided a request to waive the public hearing.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR LERNER CASE 2006-25, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR FOR LERNER CASE 2006-25 AND GRANT FINAL PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO FEES AND SUBMISSION OF THE MAPS WHICH HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY ALL FOUR LAND OWNERS, SECONDED BY RUSS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
ZBA REFERRALS: None
We have a request from the Building Inspector, Tim Keefe, dated 10/23/06 regarding Riverview Condominiums (Planning Board Case 2003-36). He has issued a C/O to the Riverview Condominiums. A site inspection was conducted and the site work appears to conform to the site plan with some minimal changes. He has attached letters dated 8/11/05 and 9/28/06 from Taconic Design Consultants, Inc. confirming the work as required by condition #6 of Planning Board Case #2003-36 for site plan amendment. At this time he recommends that the performance bond with the exception of 15% be released to the applicant.
Roxanne stated that Item #6 from Planning Board Approval of February 26, 2004 it states upon completion of all roadways and parking areas the applicants engineer will submit a stamped and signed letter confirming that all roadways and parking areas were built to standard highway specifications and landscaping has been installed as shown on the site plan. At this time, the performance bond except for 15% of the final construction cost will be refunded to the applicant. The 15% will remain in account for one year to cover the cost of any maintenance issues that may arise.
Russ would like to have the engineer rewrite the letter so that it is clearly stated in the letter that all roadways and parking areas have been built to Town Highway Specifications. Russ is looking for accountability. Discussion took place regarding the wording in the letters received from Taconic Design Consultants, Inc. Fred feels that the sections were on there that they were supposed to build to and they stamped it so he has no problem with it. Russ then sided with Fred and withdrew his complaint.
FRED MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONCUR WITH TIM KEEFE, BUILDING INSPECTOR, RECOMMENDATION TO RETURN THE PERFORMANCE BOND REGARDING RIVERVIEW CONDOMINIUMS, CASE #2003-36, EXCEPT FOR 15% TO THE APPLICANT. THE PERFORMANCE BOND IS TO BE EXTENDED IN THE AMOUNT OF 15% FOR ONE MORE YEAR, MOTION SECONDED BY RUSS. ALL MEMBERS
WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Somerset (Hudson Point): We had a meeting Friday with the Ulster County Planning Board Director and staff because the Town Board has referred the Somerset application to the County Planning Board. The County Planning Board refused to look at the application for the October Meeting because there was only a four day timeframe to look over all the material. Dennis Doyle had requested a meeting about three weeks ago. We met on Friday with Dennis Doyle, Rob Liebowitz, County Planning Board, Joe Eriole, Esq., Nick Graviano, Dan Shuster, Supervisor Coutant and Roxanne present at this meeting. One of the issues that came up was that the Planning Board needs to authorize Dan to come up with the draft findings for SEQR which Dan is willing to do and he will be doing this for the Town Board. We can authorize this and have two or three members of the Board work with him or authorize him to proceed on our behalf.
Fred questioned if this has to be done before the Town Board votes on this. Roxanne stated that it does so that both the Planning Board and the Town Boards which will be slightly different will be available at the same time.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING, SECONDED BY JOHN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE MEETING, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
We are discussing Dan Shuster proceeding with the update for the Planning Board SEQR Findings.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION AUTHORIZING DAN SHUSTER TO PROCEED WITH THE DRAFT FINDINGS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SEQR FOR SOMERSET, SECONDED BY FRED. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
FRED MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:10 PM.
Next Monthly Meeting – Thursday, December 14, 2006 (Agenda Cutoff – November 30, 2006)
Planning Board Secretary