TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 23, 2008
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Darin DeKoskie
ALSO PRSENT: Myles Putman, M.L. Putman Consulting
Chairperson Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order at 7:00 PM beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.
Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes of the September 23, 2008 workshop meeting or September 25, 2008 regular meeting.
Dennis Suraci questioned the September 25, 2008 meeting minutes, page 5, under Ferguson and that application being before the Zoning Board of Appeals and if the right plan was before that Board because according to this Board’s last meeting the plan previously submitted may be changed. Some discussion took place and it was agreed that we needed to find out what plan was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The variance requested was for Section 123.130.(1) requiring a 100 foot setback for parking. They would need a 60 foot variance in the front yard and 78 feet and 10 feet variances on the North and South yards respectively.
MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 WORKSHOP MEETING AND SPETEMBER 25, 2008 REGULAR MEETING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
M.L. Putman, Consulting (Somerset)…………………………………………..$ 1,440.00
M.L. Putman, Consulting (Month of September)………………………………$ 2,250.00
Clough Harbour Assoc. (Somerset)…………………………………………….$ 4,787.59
Daily Freeman Legal Notice……………………………………………………$ 8.25
Daily Freeman (Bailer)…………………………………………………………$ 12.13
Tapes (Somerset)……………………………………………………………….$ 20.00
Shuster Associates (Somerset)………………………………………………….$ 3,900.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)……………………………………………..48 ½ Hours
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
SCHROETER: Case #2008-20 – Lot Line Adjustment – 85 Soper Road, West
Esopus; SBL: 71.001-4-28.11, 28.12, 28.2 & 29
Chairperson Pecora read the Public Hearing Notice placed in the Daily Freeman, copy placed in the file.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SCHROETER, CASE #2008-20, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
Wendy Jamison, 49 Soper Road, questioned that it was four lots turning into 3 lots and the little lot will stay on 22 acres. Ms. Jamison was referred to the map that was posted. She asked how many times someone can come before the Planning Board to divide the three lots. Can you repeatedly come back and re-change your lot lines. She was told that they can under a separate application. Roxanne informed Ms. Jamison that this is basically a public hearing on this application so that any comments she wishes to make the Board will take into consideration. This is not an interactive dialogue this evening. Ms. Jamison presented a letter to the Board signed by herself and her husband stating that they are strongly opposed to the request for any lot line revision made by Todd Schroeter.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this application.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SCHROETER, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
SCHROETER: Case #2008-20 – Lot Line Adjustment – 85 Soper Road, West
Esopus; SBL: 71.001-4-28.11, 28.12, 28.2 & 29
Todd Schroeter, applicant, and Kelly Anson, Engineer, were present to represent this application. Myles Putman reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 10/16/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Myles stated that the applicant did submit a full EAF but there were items that were missing and there was a hearing on a map that was not stamped or signed by a professional which makes the application technically incomplete.
Letter submitted by Wendy Jamison read for the Board. There was no reason as to why they are against this application. Letter placed in file as part of the record.
Kelly Anson stated that they will address all of the issues in M.L. Putman Consulting Review and submit to the Board. Kelly informed the Board that they have submitted an application and plans to the Health Department but they have not received approval at this point. Todd stated that they are still waiting for the DEC for a bridge culvert to cross the stream and they do not know how long that will take. Wetlands have been delineated. Mr. Anson questioned the possibility of receiving conditional approval contingent upon Health Department approval and DEC concerns being finalized. Myles stated that he is not comfortable with going ahead because it means doing SEQR and we do not have a complete SEQQR Form and require other information. He would suggest that they make the necessary changes and it can be addressed next month. The Board agreed with Myles assessment.
PERCIVALLE: Case #2008-15 – Major re-subdivision – 45 Hudson Lane, Ulster
Park; SBL: 64.003-5-2.32
Ed Pine, engineer, was present representing this application. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 10/16/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file. For the record there will be 5 new building lots incorporated in this subdivision. Myles stated that there is some confusion regarding the wetlands and that the Planning Board needs to send a letter to NYSDEC requesting a clear jurisdictional determination. There has been a draft letter already prepared with a map and submitted to the Board for their review and forwarding to NYSDEC. When we receive clear direction from DEC we can deal with the other issues regarding this application.
Roxanne stated that she has the draft of the letter from Myles dated 10/23/08. Roxanne read the letter and copy of the letter was given to applicant and placed in the file. The Board was in agreement with it.
Mr. Pine stated that it was mentioned to the client that they may want to get the wetlands recertified and maybe it would gain some additional useable property. The only spot that made sense was out near the road and this does not make sense since the client would not change anything and he would leave it as is. Brian Drum, DEC Investigator, mentioned that even if it were DEC wetlands he did not see any reason why they would deny any permits because they would not want to cut off the parcels in the back that are usable. Mr. Pine stated that with Federal wetlands it is possible to relocate boundary lines as long as you provide double the amount but DEC does not go for this so they feel that it does not even make sense to approach it. Mr. Pine has not sent correspondence at this point because it was felt that it was better to put everything in at the same time including the stormwater which is still being worked on.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO SEND LETTER AS READ TO DEC REGARDING PERCIVALLE, CASE #2008-15, SECONDED BY MIKE S. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Dennis questioned the access reservation strip (50’) shown on the map and if it should not be at the end of the hammerhead rather than along side of it so that if it ever takes place it is at the end of the road rather than a shift in the road. Ed Pine stated that it does make more sense. Dennis asked who prepared the wetland maps. Ed stated that the ERS company flagged the wetlands and they will stamp and sign it. Fred questioned if there is frontage on Lot #5. Myles stated that it looks like two 25’ pieces one on one side and one on the other. Ed stated that there is certainly at least 50’ of frontage there. Chuck questioned granting sketch approval. He is wondering if there is a way to protect ourselves and the applicant from waiting such a long time for an answer. Myles stated that writing a letter to DEC and requesting a straight answer is the point of the letter we are sending. Myles stated that from what Ed is saying verbally is that DEC is going to look for a way to at least accommodate access into the back of the lot. We may not see too much in major changes in terms of reducing lots. Ed stated that at this point they do not have jurisdiction over it or at least they do not feel that they do. This means that the Federal does but we need an answer before we go forward. Ed Pine stated that he received correspondence from Albany regarding threatened and endangered species. They list a couple but nothing on the site and this will be incorporated in the next submission.
Mike S. asked regarding the concept of a multi-home private roadway. Mike referred to a letter from Ed Pine dated October 9, 2008 stating that they will be submitting a letter to the Town Highway Superintendent to change the previously approved access from residential driveway to a multi-home private roadway. Myles stated that he was of the understanding that this was going to be a town road and if it is going to be private it will still have to be built to Town specifications and then you would need a Road Maintenance Agreement or some other way of taking care of this road. Ed stated that the client as far as if it stays a private road may be able to not have to pave it. Fred stated that this would not be accurate. It needs to be built up to town highway standards. Roxanne stated that if they intend to turn it over to the Town we will need a letter that states that they intend to turn it over. We would then advise the Town Board of their intention. The Board needs to know the intent of the road but regardless you will need to build it to town highway specifications. Dennis stated that if he does dedicate it does that extension have to be on its own? Myles stated that it should be part of the offer. Discussion took place regarding how best to deal with this 50’ access strip. Ed questioned if it was necessary to have the 50’ reservation. Dennis questioned that if it is not a delineated parcel can it be a right-of-way. Dennis stated that rather than a deeded right-of-way just give them a right-of-way over there and don’t take the property. Now they still own the land but the road has a right to go over it if this ever gets developed and you need the second access. If you deed it you will have two parcels and if you don’t you will just provide a right-of-way. Fred does not see how you can leave it as a right-of-way. Roxanne stated that there are other options (i.e. a land conservancy) “forever wild” you can’t do anything with it because it is wetlands. Fred questioned who is going to pay taxes on it. Roxanne stated that the owner of the other lot will pay taxes on it. Chuck felt that if you don’t put a road in the Town will end up owning a piece of property that is no good. Myles stated that if you attach it to the property you make an exception for the Town road you are not necessarily setting it up as a separate parcel. Even now if we establish the extension there should be language that it is part of Lot #7 not a separate lot. Fred agrees with this. Fred asked if they want to use that as an easement opposed to a right-of-way for a road. Myles stated that they can do it like Avon Park with platted streets. What you don’t do is let the developer deed the street over to someone else later on. Roxanne stated that even if it is deeded the Town has to take ownership. You can not just leave it as a set aside. Mike stated that if it is an easement they do not have a right to sell it but they still have to maintain it. Roxanne stated that the Town will have to take ownership. Mike questioned why the Town can’t let whoever buys Lot #7 own that property and the Town have an easement to put a road there in the future. Roxanne stated that we have to take ownership we have already gone through this in the past. She explained a situation we dealt with recently dealing with Avon Park and the Town Board. Following further discussion it was felt that the only logical place you could join this strip was with Lot #7.
STEWARTS: Case #2008-21 & Case #2008-22
Roxanne stated that she has been in discussion with Stewart’s Shop and they are not part of the formal meeting this evening. Following this meeting the Board will go into a Pre-submission type workshop with Stewart’s at their choice. This was agreed to by Chad Fowler who is here this evening to represent Stewart’s Shop.
Ferguson – Hudson Valley Schools – Route 9W, West Park
Applicant is requesting change of use from residential to a Vocational School which will require a variance from Section 123.13.0.(1) requiring a 100 foot setback for parking. They will need a 60 foot variance in the front yard and 78 foot variance and 10 foot variance on the North and South yards respectively.
Myles stated that he has been in contact with John Freeman, engineer, who stated that they were rethinking the parking the way the Board had suggested in terms of providing a primary area and then an expansion area of the parking. Dennis questioned if they should be in front of the Zoning Board at this time. Myles stated they are still going with the setback variance that they requested. It should be 100 feet on the road so they are going for a 60 foot variance so it takes it to 40 feet and 22 feet from the North end. Fred stated that you have the right-of-way in there. Chuck questioned if they should be before both Boards at the same time. Myles stated that this application needs to go hand-in-hand with both Boards because we have looked at a plan that we believe we can live with in terms of the parking lot location and setbacks. This Board has given the applicant a sense that they need to take it to the ZBA for the variances. If this Board feels differently about how the parking should be located or the setbacks should be granted, then this is the Board’s opportunity to state this. Dennis questioned what sketch they submitted to the ZBA. Following some discussion Mike questioned why we don’t make a strong statement to the ZBA that we are not ready to locate the parking yet. Chuck stated that he did not feel that we reached a final conclusion as to the best solution for the parking.
Myles stated that he thinks we will need to look at the engineering plans on the parking area. Myles felt that what we may want to tell the ZBA that this Board still has a lot of unanswered questions about the grading and the site disturbance and if the parking is really going to work in that location. Roxanne stated that at the last meeting Ms. Ferguson was trying to get the Board’s opinion on a design change and she was told that they needed to decide what they wanted to do and come back with a plan. Chuck stated that we should say that this Board understands that a variance will likely be required to accommodate the applicant and in general do not have a problem with it but in general do not want to grant more of a variance than necessary and we need to do more study and engineering.
Roxanne stated that we need to tell the ZBA that we do not have a clear and final determination from the applicant as to what they want to do with parking and as such a variance should not be considered at this time. The Planning Board should respectfully request that the ZBA table this until the Planning Board advises you of a firm parking design from the applicant for your consideration.
Letter submitted from Tim Keefe, Building Inspector, dated 10/17/09 regarding the Recreational Fee and clarification that is being requested as it pertains to subdivisions. Chairperson Pecora read the letter as part of the record.
Roxanne stated that the argument is that we have a recreation fee and should it we considered a lot that is already existing or should it only be applied to new lots. The fees that were approved and passed by the Town Board do not delineate this. Myles stated that the key is whether you assess the fee for a lot that is vacant or one that has an existing dwelling on it. Following some discussion it was agreed that the Board members would think about this and convey their wishes at the next Planning Board Meeting in November. Roxanne asked Dennis to work on a tier structure and get it back to her so that she can get it out to everyone on the Board.
Chairperson Pecora reminded the Board members of the requirement for 4 Hours of Training required per year. There will be a Planning Seminar on November 13, 2008 at Ulster Community College and December 9, 2008 at the Ulster County Legislative Chambers (which will discuss the County Charter and how it will affect the Planning Board - 2 hours credit).
MIKE S. MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:32 PM.
NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: November 19, 2008
No Second Meeting in November
Deadline Date: November 6, 2008
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: October 30, 2008
Planning Board Secretary