TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 2007
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Excused: Chuck Snyder
Absent: Dennis Suraci
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.
MARTONE: Case #2007-19 – Lot Line Adjustment – 1495 & 1501 Main Street –
Rte 213; 1-10 Van Wagner Road, St. Remy; SBL: 63.001-1-4.1 & 4.2
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated October 12, 2007, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. John Martone, applicant, was present.
Mr. Martone proposes to reconfigure the boundaries of two abutting residential lots. The lot line adjustment proposes no new building construction at this time. Myles recommended given the sometimes limited ground water yield from the underlying bedrock, a slightly larger lot area (3 to 4 acres) be considered.
Mr. Martone is concerned about the future of this property and wants to allow enough land available for anyone who purchases the lot with the brick house and barn on it so that they can do whatever they may want to in the future. The brick house has road frontage on Van Wagner Road and Mr. Martone has someone interested in purchasing this lot and restoring the brick house. The barn on this parcel is renovated and is used as a residence. Mr. Martone has a new house on the other lot that he did receive approval for.
Darin is concerned that the future proposal meets the setback and conforms with the existing Zoning Code. Darin wants to see the setbacks shown on the map. He does not want to see a non-conforming lot created. Darin agrees with Myles and feels that the applicant needs to add at least another acre to the new lot. Fred stated that they are going to need about 600’ on Rte 213 to come up with 3 acres.
Mr. Martone stated that he came here to get an idea of what is needed so he has something to give to his surveyor to do the survey and lot lines the way they need to be done.
Mr. Martone stated that he put a well and a septic in and he originally thought that it would be the renovated barn that a prospective purchaser would be interested in but they seem to be interested in renovating the brick house. However, he wants to give them enough property to allow them to further develop in the future. Fred raised the question of two structures on one parcel. Following some discussion Mr. Martone was referred to the Building Inspector for his opinion regarding this. It is felt by the Board that this would be the Building Inspectors responsibility to address this when he issues a Building Permit. Roxanne asked Mr. Martone to ask the Building Inspector to write the Planning Board a letter stating his opinion. Mr. Martone will have his surveyor meet with the Building Inspector directly.
Mr. Martone was told to make sure that the lot lines being removed are clearly labeled as well as the new lot lines being clearly labeled and then he and his surveyor can determine how they want to do this after meeting with the Building Inspector.
BIRCHES ASSOCIATES: Case #2006-07
Applicant represented by James Bruno. Mr. Bruno stated that they are requesting a 6 Month Extension to their subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval. Myles stated just for the record that approval is good indefinitely unless the Board chooses to revoke it after six months so basically the applicant is asking that the Board not take this action for another six months.
Roxanne stated that the Six Months would go from November 24, 2007 to May 24, 2008. Applicant can request two extensions and this is their first extension.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL FOR BIRCHES, CASE #2006-07, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
CITIVISION CAMP MINISTRIES, INC.: Case #2007-13 – Multi-Use Building and
Soccer Field (Site Plan Amendment) –
126 Carney Rd., Rifton; SBL: 63.003-3-
17 & 18
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated October 16, 2007, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Joseph Pisani, Esq., John Freeman, Meddenbach & Eggers Engineer and David Vining, Vining Construction present representing the applicant.
Myles informed the Board that a Public Hearing on the Site Plan Application is at the Planning Board’s option per Section 123-47.C(5) of the Zoning Local Law.
Mr. Pisani stated that he believes that they tried to submit a complete set of plans and provided all of the information this Board required relative to the management of the water and if the Board feels that it is something that needs to be submitted to the Planning Board Engineer the Board can do so. He feels that everything that has been done has been done to improve the site and the original plans had been submitted to the engineer.
Mike asked if the Stormwater Plan was part of that original review. Roxanne stated that it was not. Mike questioned the issue of the parking spaces since the plan says there are 61 but in fact there are only 51 parking spaces shown. Myles does not feel that this is an issue but the plans need to be revised to reflect that there are only 51 parking spaces.
Mike questioned if the retaining walls were part of the original plan. He was informed that they were not part of the original plan.
Darin questioned that there is one drainage path across the parking lot and one drainage swale. Darin’s concern is that there may be some sort of erosion there. Mr. Freeman, engineer, stated that it is a sheer rock surface and there is nothing to erode. Darin stated that they could have a problem with freeze and thaw and there may be a concern with the steep slope. Darin stated that he does not think the dry swale is approved for water quality treatment. Darin questioned the type of soil. Mr. Freeman stated that it is type C soil but the swales have to have 30” approved soil. Darin requested that he check the manual if they intend on using dry swales and get a letter or e-mail from DEC regarding water quality treatment and if not they may be able to call it an infiltration trench. Darin wants to have something for the record stating that this is an approved practice for water quality treatment. Darin feels that there is a potential for something under the soccer field and he would like to see this plan reviewed by the Planning Board Engineer.
Roxanne questioned if they are planning any exterior lighting. They stated that they were not. Darin questioned if they are proposing to irrigate the soccer field at all. Applicants answer was no.
Roxanne stated that if the Board is going to refer this to the Planning Board Engineer they will need to increase their Escrow Account.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR CITIVISION, CASE #2007-13, BY $3,000.00 AND TO REFER THE STORM- WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR REVIEW OF THE STORMWATER AND THE GRADING TO THE PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER (CLOUGH HARBOUR), SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Applicant was told that the Escrow check needs to be received immediately in order for the Planning Board Engineer to review the plans. Fred questioned if they were planning on paving the parking area. Mr. Pisani stated that presently the parking area will be gravel. They may pave in the future if the funds become available.
Mr. Pisani stated what the disposition of the Planning Board would be with respect to a Public Hearing. He asked if it could be scheduled for a Public Hearing and then the Engineering Report be forthcoming. Following some discussion it was agreed that the Board would like to have a Public Hearing on this application. Applicant agreed to forward the necessary information directly to the Planning Board Engineer for his review immediately. He was told that he needs to forward this information either Express Mail or Fed Ex and not regular mail so they can receive the plans as soon as possible.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITIVISION, CASE #2007-13, FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2007 AT 7:10 PM CONTINGENT UPON PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER’S RECEIPT OF MAPS AND PLANS IN TIME TO FORWARD REVIEW BY THIS DATE, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION WAS PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
RONDOUT HILLS, LLC (SECTION C & D): Case #2006-06 – Site Plan Amend-
ment & Subdivision Amendment
Wayne Graff, Esq., attorney for Rondout Hills called approximately 3:30 PM today to cancel for this evening and would like to be put on the agenda for November meeting.
PORT EWEN HOUSING, INC. (“THE MEADOWS”): Case #2006-10 – Major
Subdivision (28 lots) 231 ½ Salem Street; Park Lane; Eugene Street,
Port Ewen – SBL: 56.067-6-20
Andrew Fetherston, Maser Consulting, and Stanley Schutzman, attorney, were present to represent the applicant. M.L. Putman Consulting Report submitted last month, copy placed in record and copy mailed to applicant since they withdrew from the agenda last month and requested to be on the agenda for the October meeting.
Mr. Fetherston stated that Myles notes from last month summed everything up pretty well. He tried to address the comments from the Board with the major comments being stormwater and providing an alternate plan. Mr. Fetherston submitted two plans. He pointed out the one they are proposing and the other plan submitted. Board members expressed their feeling that the plans look a lot better.
Mr. Fetherston stated that the biggest change is that the size of the detention basin omitted a lot. They are calling it a drainage lot right now and he stated that he is under the assumption and if he is incorrect the Board should correct him but he is thinking that the Town would do a drainage district and take dedication. Darin stated that they would not do a drainage district but we would most likely take over the lot. Following some discussion it was stated that a decision has not yet been made by the Town and that they may have to put it under a Homeowners Association that it could go either way at this point. Mr. Fetherston stated that the lot is onto itself and there is nothing else that can be done there besides drainage. They are leaving an easement and access to get to the drainage easement. Mr. Fetherston stated that 80% of the site drains to the road and drains down into the basin. The other basin is really there to collect what is going to go to the County road.
Darin asked if there was going to be a Homeowners Association. Mr. Fetherston stated that they were not really planning on one and that DEC really frowns upon it but it is up to the Town how they want them to handle this. He stated that what they have done in other towns is to establish a drainage district and the town would tax those homes. He was informed that this town does not like that. Roxanne stated that the Town attorney is looking at assessing a fee per lot, however, there are two cases that they are looking at that have created a problem doing it this way. Both the Town attorney and the Planning Board Attorney are familiar with these cases. The Planning Board attorney wrote the Code Section for the Town of Ulster that breaks it up into different sections dealing with site plan and subdivision and it has never been challenged in court and that is kind of what Esopus is looking at. The two attorneys are trying to work this out. Darin stated that we have talked about drainage fees and the town would then not own the property but we would be given an easement to maintain it. According to the MS4 Regulations and what we have heard from our attorney is that the Town really needs to do the maintenance in this area. So what we need to do is assess a fee per lot for the maintenance of that practice then in this case you could form a Homeowners Association and the Town would not take ownership of that lot, however, we would be given a maintenance easement and agreement to go on that lot as well as have some funding to do the maintenance. Mr. Schutzman asked if the Town is going to do it that way thencan they have the drainage pond on somebody’s lot and just give an easement. Discussion took place about whether anyone would want to buy this. Darin stated that he has seen this in the past and somebody has purchased the lot. He has also seen instances when the pond was divided between two building lots. Mr. Schutzman stated that they would be approved building lots. Darin stated that they would take lot 13 and 14, and for instance give them both the pond and the Town would still be given the maintenance easement to the pond but they still have a buildable lot and they still pay the taxes on the lot. Discussion continued and Fred stated his discomfort with this idea.
Mr. Fetherston stated that the larger pond will have retaining walls around it. The walls would not be always inundated but only during a good storm event they would come up and go down. Darin stated that it is a small pond inside a big detention basin.
Darin questioned the lot number at this point. Mr. Fetherston stated that they had 27 and they lost one lot so they now have 26. Mr. Fetherson reviewed the other plan showing Mountainview as not developed with a “T” turnaround and a sewer pump station to send the sewage back up into the system. He feels that it is almost not buildable. He did it to show what he would need to do to get a road back there. He stated that the hammerhead can slide in one direction or another. They could take driveways off of the rear or the front just not off the ends because of the Highway Department. The lot count would be the same and the basin would get a little bit larger. He does not feel that the road design will work because of the grade. He did it for a concept and a sketch to show what could be done but he thinks that it is going to drop off too rapidly. The challenge is to get driveways in the back to lot 20 and 21 not taking access from the county and the town road. This is what the Planning Board wanted to see but he does not think that it is physically going to be doable. The walls located on Lot 17 and 23 need to be looked at. These two lots may need to be built up and maybe not have a garage where it is presently and put the walls on the back side of the house. There is a concern that with the “T’ there you have a wall right past the guardrail and if you are plowing that it will put it right into the driveway and then we don’t have a wall so close to the road and it is on the lot. Fred and Darin felt that it would be cheaper to put more fill in there than to build walls. They will look at this and they could probably put the walls in the back.
Darin questioned the pump station on the plans. Mr. Fetherston stated that it was put there in the case that Mountainview does not get built. Darin asked if they could phase the project in giving Mountainview a little more time if needed. He stated that they could look at phased development.
Applicant submitted copy of letter dated 10/15/07 sent to Al Larkin, Superintendent of Highways, requesting that they review the plans with respect to the road layout and design and provide written comments /approval letter to the Planning Board. Copy placed in the file. Applicant submitted copy of letter dated 10/15/07 sent to Don Kiernan, Superintendent of Water and Sewer, requesting that he review the plans with respect to the design of the water and sewer and provide his written comments/approval to the Planning Board.
Discussion took place regarding whether this plan is ready to be sent to the Planning Board Engineer. Mr. Fetherston stated that he will send it to the engineer and inform him that based on the comments from the Planning Board that they are proposing on Lot 17 and 23 to take the walls and put them in the rear and request that he comment on the plan as is with this understanding. They would like to have comments from the Planning Board Engineer at this point. He will tell Pete Lilholt that those two lots are changing, he will draw it for them and copy the Board. Roxanne stated that if we forward this to the engineer at this point their Escrow Account needs to be increased. Roxanne felt that we should at least get the one review in by increasing the escrow and forward to the engineer with the understanding that he is going to make the modification as discussed this evening.
Darin questioned if applicant has been communicating with Mountainview. Mr. Fetherson stated that they have and once Mountainview gets past the engineer review and they get approval from the Health Department they will get their sewer plan and show the connections. Darin questioned if there is any way to pull Cynthia Street off of the existing lot because it looks like they are chopping off the corner of a driveway. Roxanne stated that the owner of this driveway (Mr. Wenzel) has already contacted the Board regarding his concerns and members of the Board visited his property to understand the issues. She suggested that the applicant reach out to this homeowner to insure that his concerns are understood and address issues as best as possible.. Darin wondered if there was a way to talk to the homeowner about allowing him connection to Cynthia Street by coming straight out. They will contact the homeowner and if he is in agreement he will need to write the Board a letter. Darin questioned Myles regarding a Conservation Easement on the lots that border the wetlands. Myles stated that he suggested this last year but the previous engineer was resistant to entertain such an idea in order to protect the wetlands. Myles still thinks it would be a good idea but who would get it. You would have to have some organization be the recipient of that easement. Mr. Fetherston mentioned the HOA and Mr. Schutzman stated that it could be addressed in a deed restriction which might be better or they could put it right on the buffer. Darin stated that they could put a straight line across everyone just outside the buffer and put a deed restriction saying no filling, clearing of vegetation or disturbances to occur in this without written consent from the Town Planning Board and NYSDEC.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR PORT EWEN HOUSING “THE MEADOWS”, CASE #2006-10, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00 AND TO REFER THIS TO THE PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER FOR REVIEW OF THE SWPPP (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN), EROSION CONTROL, PLANS IN GENERAL AND SPECIFICALLY LOTS 17 AND 23. APPLICANT WILL FORWARD THE PLANS DIRECTLY TO THE ENGINEER AND COPY ACCOMPANYING LETTER WILL BE SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Roxanne informed the applicant to send the plans either priority mail or fed ex and make sure that they are addressed to Peter Lilholt, Clough Harbour. Roxanne provided the address, phone number and e-mail address for the engineer.
Mr. Schutzman asked if it would be possible to schedule this for a Public Hearing at this time. Following some discussion it was the consensus of the Board’s opinion that it is premature to schedule a Public Hearing. The Board would like to see the engineer’s report prior to scheduling a Public Hearing. Applicant was concerned about not being on the agenda for December and they would like to move this along. They were informed that they should not have a problem being placed on the agenda for December.
Mr. Schutzman stated that at this point it is their understanding that in terms of the process to date the Planning Board is reasonably comfortable with the presentation and will wait on what the engineers comments will be and on the assumption that those are accurately addressed they should be able to move forward. Darin further stated that the comments may be minor and they will talk about that at the next meeting as to what we think is major or minor and we will move forward from there.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO REQUEST THAT MYLES PUTMAN, M.L. PUTMAN CONSULTING, COMPLETE SEQR PART II AND PART III FOR PORT EWEN HOUSING “THE MEADOWS”, CASE #2006-10 SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS ARE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Training: Roxanne stated that there is another education session offered by the County Planning Board for Planning Board Basics on December 3, 2008 from 7:00 pm – 9:30 pm at the Student Lounge at the Ulster County Community College and you will receive credits for 2 hours. If you want to go, you each need to call and schedule yourself with the County Planning Board and speak with Mary Ann.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:50 PM, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING: NOVEMBER 14, 2007
DEADLINE DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2007
NEXT PRE-SUBMSISION: NOVEMBER 1, 2007
Planning Board Secretary
TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 2007
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
EXCUSED: Dennis Suraci
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 from September 19, 2007 reviewed.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE STORMWATER MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 2007, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. MICHAEL SPRAGUE ABSTAINED (ABSENT FOR THAT MEETING). ALL OTHERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Minutes fro September 27, 2007 reviewed.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 2007, SECONDED BY MIKE. FRED ABSTAINED (ABSENT FROM THAT MEETING). ALL OTHERS WERE IN FAVOR.
M.L. Putman Consulting (Month of September).………………………………..$1,500.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)………………………………………………..48 Hours
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
PERCIVALLE: Case #2007-12 – Minor (2 lot) re-subdivision – 44 Hudson Lane,
Ulster Park; SBL: 64.003-5-2.3
Joseph Percivalle, applicant, and his engineer, Ed Pine were present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting report, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Received comments from the Waterfront Advisory Board dated 10/23/07 stating that they have no issue with the project. Letter read by Roxanne, copy placed in file.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT FINAL APPROVAL FOR PERCIVALLE, CASE #2007-12 PENDING SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER COPIES AND ONE MYLAR, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
MOUNTAIN VIEW (aka Belleaire Ridge, LLC): Case #2005-05 – Major 31 lot re-
Subdivision – Salem Street,
Mountainview Avenue; May Park Terrace, Port Ewen;
Terri Hahn and Chuck Genck were present representing the applicant. Myles Putman reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated October 22, 2007, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Myles stated that he concurs completely with Peter Lilholt, Clough Harbour, Inc., engineering comments given the soil and drainage conditions on the site. He does not feel that you can be too careful doing a thorough investigation of the strength and capabilities of the soils to handle the improvements being proposed in the form of retaining walls, highways, utility lines and building foundations.
Roxanne stated that there is a key issue that has been raised dealing with the retaining walls. She has spoken to Pete Lilholt, Clough Harbour, engineer regarding these and she asked Alan Larkin, Highway Superintendent, to attend our meeting this evening.
Roxanne informed Alan that the developer is proposing over 1,000 lineal feet and in some areas the retaining walls can go from 10’ – 12’ and they will be in the Town right-of-way meaning the Town would have ownership of these. Roxanne stated that we do not know Alan’s take on it so that is why she asked him to come to the meeting this evening.
Roxanne asked Alan if he had a chance to look at the maps. He stated that he glanced over them quickly but he does not like the idea of the Town owning the retaining walls. He would rather have retaining walls outside of the Town ownership because if anything goes wrong with them it is up to the residents of the Town to maintain. He stated that he has never been put in a situation where he had to accept a road with retaining walls to hold the road up. He thinks it is something that you would have to check on with the Town Planning Board’s Engineer. Roxanne asked if they are put out of the Town right-of-way who would then have legal obligation to maintain them. Alan stated that it would then be the property owner’s responsibility.
Terri stated that the retaining walls are all part of the culvert system to get over the stream. Terri pointed out the stream crossing and stated that they are about 10’ higher to connect the surrounding grades. There is a 10’ culvert that comes through there but in order to get down to the grade and avoid the DEC designated buffer area there are retaining walls that go along through there. The one retaining wall is 3-5’ high then it goes to 10’-12’ to go across the stream and over the sewer line. There are other retaining walls and because of the way the existing properties were developed they have to get over the small stream and over to Agnes Street. They need to lift up the road and fill without going onto adjacent properties. In the one area, there is nothing that they can do to remove the retaining walls from the right-of-way. Agnes Street is kind of high and then they drop out to their backyards so they need to come in and cross the stream. They have strictly 50’ to work with. It surprisingly drops fairly substantially out the back of the properties.
Roxanne asked if lots 2, 9, 10, 11 or 22 are affected by the retaining walls. Terri stated that none of the lots listed are affected by the retaining walls. Roxanne stated that the rear of the house on lot 9 is approximately 5’ from a fence on top of an 11’ tall retaining wall. Terri stated that there are two retaining walls that are private retaining walls that are not related to the road. Terri stated that there is not 1,000’ of retaining walls associated with the road. There is a fairly good distance but it is not this much. Terri stated that there are two issues related to retaining walls. One is that there are retaining walls associated with the road and then there are a couple of retaining walls on private lots. They will try and solve the retaining walls on private lots in a different manner. They are not finished having those discussions to see if they can do something a little bit different but with respect to the road section they need to discuss this tonight and try to figure out how to resolve this issue.
Darin asked if there was any way that they can come into the culvert and the road section lower. Terri stated that she would love to but then she hits a sewer line. She stated that it is partially the stream but then she hits the sewer line that is about 6’ higher than the surrounding stream so in order to make the road connection she has the stream and the sewer lines and she has to be up above it.
Fred asked if they were going to have a Homeowners Association. Terri stated that they were not planning on that. All the lots are individual. Roxanne stated that the main issue right now is that the retaining walls are in the Town right-of-way which Alan Larkin does not want ownership of that. Terri feels that she may be able to move some out of the Town right-of-way but the one area she can not do anything with.
Darin asked Terri what the depth of cover is to the top of the sewer line. Terri believes that it is 3’ from the finished grade of road to the top of the sewer line. She will check this. Darin stated that they have that high point and obviously they have to pass whatever flow through the large culvert but he was wondering if they could go steeper on that slope to reduce the overall length of that wall as well as possibly push it back. Terri stated that they can look into this. Some discussion took place regarding DEC wetlands and Darin expressed that he would rather see them grading into the buffer area if they could get DEC permission. Terri stated that with the exception of the crossings they had to be as tight as they could possibly be they would let them grade beyond the 50’. Darin stated that he would think that they would rather do some grading than to have a solid wall. Terri stated that they can look to see if it can come down a little bit.
Alan stated that he has never been put in a situation where it is not a normal road. They are talking about maintaining retaining walls and this is not a normal situation. In forty (40) years from now if it goes bad who is going to pay to replace it. Terri asked if it is possible to have a 1-on-1 off the shoulder. Darin stated a 1-on-1 if they are going to rip-wrap it. Alan feels that she needs to talk to the Planning Board’s Engineer. Terri stated that she spoke with the Planning Board’s Engineer and he is telling her to talk to the Planning Board. She just needs to know what to do.
She said that if it is possible they can look at going 1-on-1 off of it but there is going to be some kind of retaining wall to go across the stream. Fred questioned how much wider they would have to move the walls to get them on private property. Terri felt that it would probably be 8’ on each side. Terri stated that they will try a combination of those things.
Alan stated that he does not have a problem with the ending wall or the culvert but if you are talking even 800’ of retaining walls that are on Town property it is not accepting a normal road installation. The cost factor to repair something like that is unreal.
Terri questioned if they could come out and do the shoulder and then go to a 1-on-1 section off of the road. Darin asked what type of soil that would be. Terri stated that it would be some kind of imported fill. Darin stated that he would rather see 2-on-1. Terri stated that it is not her that is arguing with the Board it is the DEC who has set the rules in this case. Darin stated that there is room for DEC to move. Terri stated that she has never found them willing to do that. Darin stated that she can apply for more of a wetlands buffer and mitigate wetlands somewhere on site. Darin thought that maybe they can meet half way with the DEC. Terri stated that they will try to do something that is a little bit less steep than 1-on-1 and some combination to pull the walls out of the right-of-way or something that seems to work they will make that effort. The other section they will not be able to do anything about. Chuck Genck stated that they had to purchase the piece of land required to straighten out the property for the road.
Chuck Snyder stated that the plans do not appear to be that much different than previously presented. He asked if they lost any lots. Terri stated that since their previous appearance before the Board they have lost a couple of lots. Chuck Snyder stated that he does not ever recall anything approaching 11’ for retaining walls. He is wondering if the location they are using is the best location for crossing the stream. Terri stated that it was always on the plans and other areas to cross the stream are worse. They checked out three different locations and it gets worse.
Roxanne read a section of the report from Peter Lilholt, Clough Harbour, regarding the willingness of the town to accept the road with the retaining walls. We know Alan’s take on the bottom half but what is your opinion of the top half since they have no other option. Alan stated that he would not have too much of a problem with a three foot retaining wall but when you get into 10-12’ retaining walls you are talking some major money to repair these. Before he would accept something like that he would consult the Town Board and the Planning Board’s Engineer to see if they are in agreement. Alan stated that all he does is recommend that the town accept it but the Town Board may decline because of the way it is designed and because they feel that it will be a burden on the taxpayers of the town. Alan asked who actually owns the property in the stream since there are no houses in that 10-11’ area. Terri stated that all the lots are allocated. Alan said he would rather see the headwall where the pipe actually crosses and some sort of a slope on the sockets. Terri stated that she will see what she can come up with. She asked if somewhere around 5’ would that be acceptable. Alan stated that this would not be too bad and Roxanne stated that they need to look at eliminating it down below.
Chuck Snyder asked if a letter from the Board to the DEC would help. Darin felt that a letter to the DEC would hold some weight. Following some discussion Darin agreed to compose a letter for Roxanne’s review and signature to be sent to the DEC.
Darin questioned if they need a buffer at this time. Terri stated that they don’t at the moment because it is not mapped yet and this was a negotiated pre-mapped condition. They said that as long as it is associated with road crossings there can be a little bit of disturbance. Terri feels that she can push a little bit but a letter from this Board would help. Darin stated that there are some spots where they could do some sort of buffer mitigation that would also save the client money.
Fred asked if they had decided what type of retaining wall they are going to put up. Terri stated that the proposal was for the contact system – pre cast walls. The panels are rather heavy and they are not a uniblock. They come in 6’ sections and they would be discussing color choices with the Board.
Terri asked if they could get a resolution from the Board with respect to the letter so she can send it to the DEC to make sure they don’t have any problems. Darin stated that he can write a letter if someone else will sign it.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION THAT DARIN DRAFT A LETTER FOR THE CHAIRPERSON’S SIGNATURE TO THE DEC WITH RESPECT TO MOUNTAINVIEW ASKING FOR SOME RELIEF ON THE RETAINING WALLS AND BUFFER MITIGATION, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Chuck Genck stated that technically it is not DEC it is all Army Corp of Engineers wetlands. Myles stated that it is over 12 ½ acres so it is regulated by them now. Darin asked if they are going to take them after the project is approved or are they going to take them prior to that. Terri stated that they don’t know and it is all in the timing.
Roxanne asked where we fit in with the Army Corp of Engineers with comments. Terri stated that at the moment it is not an issue.
Roxanne stated that while Alan is still here the next item we want his comments on was dealing with the guardrail design. Terri stated that they don’t have any problems with that. Pete wanted them to meet the DOT standard and they don’t disagree. Terri stated that Pete was recommending that there is the section that comes down and they have the paved swale and Pete was recommending an under drain. She wanted to know if Alan had a problem with this. Alan stated that he had no problem and they should tie it in with an under drain. She asked Alan if he wants fabric on top of the soil and the sub-base. Alan stated that with the swampy area he would recommend fabric. Alan stated that the only thing he had a problem with was with the retaining walls.
Chuck questioned if lot 2 and lot 8 can be adjusted slightly. Myles felt that in terms of usable yard area maybe they could tweak the boundary between lot 1 and 2 a little further west and maybe they could tweak the boundary between lot 7 and 8 a little bit further north to give lot 8 a little bit more yard room and space. Terri will look at some of the lots. It is not that they don’t conform but in terms of usable yard area it is going to be tight. Roxanne stated that Pete raised the question of lots buildability for lots 2, 9, 10, 11, and 22 in the rear of the house. Terri disagrees with lot 2 and they do not disagree with lots 9 or 10 and lot 11 and 12 should have fences.
Discussion took place regarding Recreation Fee. The applicant offered to double the Recreation Fee when the fee was $1,000 (last year). Roxanne explained to the Board that she has been informed by a conversation with Dennis Doyle, Ulster County Planning Board, that the fee of $1,500 (Recreation Fee at this time) is not enforceable since it was passed as a resolution and not a law. Dennis stated that we can either increase that fee, decrease that fee if we feel that it should be less or seek land for recreation. Discussion took place among the Planning Board Members. It is the Planning Board’s responsibility to collect this fee by placing it in a motion for the applicant upon approval.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO MAKE THE RECREATION FEE FOR $2,000 PER LOT. (THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THIS MOTION.)
Darin stated that Mike pointed out that if we set a fee and it takes a long time for application to be approved and the Recreation Fee has gone up shouldn’t we make a motion to double the fee at the time of approval. Mike felt that we should wait until the applicant receives approval and at that time we set the fee for the Recreation.
Roxanne stated that even though there is a Recreation Fee established by the Town there is no mechanism to collect it without the Planning Board putting it in a motion as a condition for approval. Following an extensive discussion it was felt that this Board needs to sit down and discuss this further in the future.
Roxanne informed the Board that a Recreation Fee has never been collected in this Town. When we went checking to see who has the authority to make it happen we discovered that this falls within the responsibilities of the Planning Board.
Gloria VanVliet, Councilperson, explained that the Town Board realized that they are going to need recreation money in order to do something with our parks. We have a Recreation Commission now and they want to do a lot of things and we have to fund that. Gloria explained that a Local Law takes 90 days and then whenever the Recreation Fee is changed then they have to repeal the Law and make another Local Law so by having it as a resolution it gives the Planning Board flexibility.
Discussion then took place regarding whether this fee was charged for every subdivision or only for what is considered a major subdivision. This fee is set in lieu of land for recreation.
Following additional discussion it was agreed to set this topic aside to a later date for further discussion.
PORT: Case #2005-23 – Minor (2 lot) re-subdivision – 85 Soper Road, West
Esopus; SBL 71.001-4-52.11
Randy and Jacqueline Port present. Myles Putman reviewed M.L. Putman Consultant Report dated October 13, 2007, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
This application has Ulster County Health Department approval and Town Highway Department approval for access to Lot A copy of both placed in the file.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR PORT CASE #2005-23, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Roxanne informed applicant that if we schedule a Public Hearing this evening there is a $200.00 Public Hearing Fee.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING UPON RECEIPT OF THE $200.00 FEE FOR PORT, CASE #2005-23 FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2007 AT 7:20 PM, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
C & M SACKETT DEVELOPMENT, LLC: Case #2006-26 – Minor (2-lot) re-
Subdivision – 196 Sackett St; Hamilton Court; Kline Lane, Port Ewen; SBL 56.060-3-9.3
Chris Zell, engineer, Brinnier & Larios, present representing the applicant. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated October 12, 2007, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file.
Fred questioned the turnaround at the end of Hamilton Court. He doesn’t remember it being quite like it is shown. Fred also mentioned that the last time we did not get the money from the previous applicant for the escrow to insure the turnaround was done. It was never built so this time we will be looking for the money. We will have to determine the cost based on current construction cost data.
Chris stated that the way it is shown it has always been that way. It has never been paved and nothing was ever done to it. It was never conveyed to the Town. Chris stated that these will be two issues that have to be addressed. Fred stated that he is sure that we are going to want the turnaround paved. Roxanne stated that this actually ended up with the Building Inspector last year when lots 1 and 2 were disturbed and stormwater issues became apparent. There was a stormwater plan and plats were not signed for the project. Chris Zell was asked if he has signed plats from the last time it was before us. Chris believed that it was approved and filed. He will have to look. He said that Mr. Komasa (previous applicant) sold this to the present applicant with an approved 3 lot subdivision. Roxanne stated that there was a stop work order last year when they started building. Chris stated that he believes this was C & M Sackett when they started building last year. Chris stated that the Stormwater Prevention Plan was drawn up for them which they then followed for lots 1, 2 and 3 but they were actually constructing on lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 never was developed. They sold one of the lots and still own the second. Don Kiernan sent a letter dated 7/16/07 in which he said he reviewed the maps submitted regarding subdivision of lot 3 and that at this time he has no objections to the plans as shown with an easement through lots 3A to 3B for water and sewer. Copy placed in file. Chris submitted a letter from Alan Larkin dated 8/2/07 regarding driveway permits and it stated that he feels that one driveway should be on Hamilton Court and one driveway should be on Kline Lane. Copy placed in the file. Chris stated that the driveway will be just under 12% and they are trying to find out from the architect what type of house will be put on that lot so they can do additional grading in order to lessen the grade there.
Darin questioned if they could pull the house back a little bit. If they moved the house back a little bit, they would not have a problem. Darin mentioned that we have an issue with the stormwater for Tucker Pond and by adding another house there they are going to be adding to the existing issue that we have. He was wondering if it was possible on lot 3B to do some dry wells, roof leaders or infiltration for the house just to not add any additional run-off to the existing problem. Chris stated that it is very sandy soil so it may work but it is also very erosive soil. They will look into this.
Fred stated that we need contours on lot 3A and Fred would like to see some contours carried over on lot 2. Chris will have that put on this map. Even though lot 2 has a house on it, Fred would like to see information on lot 2 so he can see where the water is going. Fred questioned why they did not get the water off of Hamilton Court. Chris stated that the Water Superintendent did not want to do that. Chris stated that the developer has had the conversations with Don Kiernan and Alan Larkin so he is getting his information second hand. He felt that the best thing for him to do is to talk to Don Kiernan. Chris said that he will contact Don Kiernan and bring the Board back assurance that Don agrees with the location of the line, of the alignment and give the Board some metes and bounds description of it. Chris will provide grades on lot 2 and lot 3. Lot 3A was graded and nothing has changed on there.
Roxanne stated that when the property belonged to Komasa we received a letter dated 3/30/05 from Alan Larkin saying he felt that $6,500 in an Escrow Account should cover the paving for the turnaround at Hamilton Court. Roxanne stated that on 9/23/04 one of the conditions of approval was that the applicant must get a reasonable cost estimate to bring the road up to Town specifications and this cost estimate was subject to the Town Highway Superintendent’s approval. We never received a cost estimate. This is a totally new applicant so we would have to go back through this again. We will need a cost estimate and it should be reviewed with Alan. Fred will talk with Alan regarding what he wants done.
The Short Form EAF needs to be signed. Short Form EAF given to Chris to obtain signature. Chris stated that they will try to bring all of the information from the first map onto this map so that it is not so confusing. The board members thanked him for this.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR C&M SACKETT CASE #2006-26, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
HEAVENLY VALLEY: #2001- , Major re-subdivision (Phase 2) –Peters
Pass, Four Sisters Lane, Port Ewen; SBL 56.075-3-1
Applicant, Tom Danielle, was present.
Roxanne stated that we received a letter dated 9/5/07 from Don Kiernan, Water/Sewer Superintendent in which he states he is in receipt of letter from Tom Danielle regarding capacity of water required per day. Don stated that the Water/Sewer District has sufficient capacity for both water and sewer to supply this proposed project. Letter received from Alan Larkin, Highway Superintendent, dated 9/10/07 stating that he is in agreement with the plans, however, as Highway Superintendent he wants all drainage swales to be blacktopped along all roads within Phase II and all hammerheads and turnarounds are to be removed. Copies of both letters have been placed in the file. We have a letter from Supervisor Coutant dated 8/31/07 advising that Heavenly Valley
Phase 2 shall have the second entrance/exit to the development as per Planning Board requirements. He further stated that Mr. Danielle is in contract with the Town of Esopus to complete installation of approximately 620’ of water pipe and to develop the entrance to the New Town Hall Site. Copy of letter placed in the file.
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 10/16/07, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file.
Tom Danielle needs to speak with the school district to see if they are going to bus the children from Phase 2 development or are they required to walk.
Darin stated that he would rather not see the blacktop swales go in particularly regarding the stormwater. They are recommended if slopes are steep but in this case they are not steep and in terms of water quality they really don’t help. Darin stated that this is something DEC wants us to try to move away from. Darin will discuss this with Alan. Darin stated that he is in agreement with Myles comments as well at Pete Lilholt’s and he would like to see them addressed.
Mr. Danielle stated that there are a lot of comments in Pete Lilholt’s report that have been addressed and he stated that Pete thought they Mr. Danielle and his engineer Mr. Berger should sit down and go through them. Roxanne stated that this is really what they should do and what should have been done with the last engineering review which the Planning Board gave direction on to the applicant. Roxanne stated that Mr. Danielle’s engineer did not provide a cover letter to say what he addressed and what he did not so the Planning Board’s engineer had to go down each item line by line which is time consuming and costly. The engineer needs to tell us in a letter the next time what he has done.
Roxanne advised Mr. Danielle that he will not receive a final approval from this Board until he meets the obligations that he has with the Town It is possible that he may receive an approval with conditions. Prints will not be signed until he meets these obligations. We can take this to a Public Hearing when we get to that point but approval will not be granted until your obligations are met.
Mr. Danielle stated that they got the water mains off of 9W and Don Kiernan hooked up the water and the three valves going into the New Town Hall so there is water there. The electric is already in. He is totally out of the way and there are no crosses or anything. He stated that Charlie is really pushing him but if it gets done yesterday or in two weeks it is not an issue at this time.
Planning Board will ask the Supervisor for a copy of the Contract that Mr. Danielle has with the Town so we know what is required.
ZBA REFERRALS: None.
Marion Zimmer, Chairperson, Waterfront Advisory Board is really looking for someone from the Planning Board to fill the slot vacated by John McMichael. Board members were asked to think about this.
Chuck Snyder agreed to be the Alternate to the Ulster County Planning Board. Roxanne will pass this information on to the Town Board.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Respectfully submitted by:
April OnetoPlanning Board Secretary