TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 22, 2009
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
BOARD MEMBERS 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: Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes of the September 24, 2009 meeting.
Myles stated that on Page 9, Paragraph 1, sentence 4 should be that they should be the neighbor and not the developer so that it is clear and the following sentence is unclear and following some discussion it was agreed that it should be removed.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. MINUTES WERE APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR, 1 ABSTENTION. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Peter C. Graham, Esq (Planning Board)...YYYYYYYYYYYYY..$ 175.00
Clough Harbour (Port Ewen Housing AThe Meadows@)YYYYYYYY$ 679.70
M.L.Putman Consulting (Month of September)YYYYYYYYYYY.$2,250.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (Port Ewen Hosuing AThe Meadows)YYYYY$ 300.00
Daily Freeman (Jubie P.H.)YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY$ 12.60
April Oneto (Secretarial Servcies)YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY56 2 hours
FRED MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS READ, SECONDED BY DARIN. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
GIAMPIETRO: Case #2009-22 B Minor Subdivision B 444 New Salem Road
(County Rd. 57); May Park (Kingston P.O.)
Applicant, Barbara Giampietro, present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Report dated 10/15/09, copy was given to applicant and copy was placed in the file.
Applicant originally was before the Board for a Conditional Use Permit for the barn that has two dwelling units in it. Applicant then decided to subdivide the property into two lots; one with the stone house and one with the barn and two apartments. There is pre-existing non-conforming Agrandfathered@ setbacks in connection with the access easement given to the radio tower site. There is a pre-existing encroachment and drawing a side lot line down the middle of that 10= right-of-way is not going to make any material difference. The second issue is the number of dwellings on Lot #1. There will be two dwellings units in the barn. The subdivision minimizes the situation but we still have to deal with the two dwellings which could be dealt with by doing a legitimate accessory apartment with the small unit and make the bit unit the primary dwelling in the barn. We need to approve the Conditional Use Permit application in conjunction with the subdivision application. The County needs to be made aware of the number of users on 10 foot driveway easement.
Barbara stated that they really have to split the parcel into two lots because they will need the income from the apartments to pay the taxes. The one apartment is for the caretaker to live in which is just a studio apartment and the other apartment is rentable. They have no intentions of selling they just need the income for taxes.
Fred questioned if Spinnenweber Construction has another access in the back. Myles does not know. Barbara stated that she thinks that they picked the property up recently and she thinks at an auction. She stated that there is another way to get to the tower. The road goes up to the tower which is Maxwell=s property. Fred asked if it was the intention of the owner to run both houses off of the same well. Barbara stated that it is their intention. Fred questioned if it triggers anything with the Board of Health. Darin felt that we should get their opinion since it is being subdivided and if it is ever sold in the future as two individual lots. Applicant was told that we will need something from the Board of Health concerning the well. Fred questioned variances on front yard setback. Myles stated that this was not necessary. The front yard setback from the stone house is what it is and from the barn setbacks from the road is what it is.
Bill stated that he noticed that the property boundary line runs down the middle of the road and is wondering if this is a problem. Myles stated that they would have to put in a deed or some legal instrument stating who would have rights to those roads. Bill stated that it appears that they would only have rights to their side of the road. Myles stated that there would need to be an easement and a description on that easement that says that the full width of that easement can be enjoyed by all. By definition it is pretty narrow, only about 10= and they may want to make it wider for the two residential properties. Bill asked what he would recommend in terms of width. Myles thought something like 20-25= for a private road. Roxanne stated that she remembers there being a legal dispute. Barbara stated that something was mentioned to her that if they widened the road then the property up there could be developed to build houses. Barbara stated that right now she has an easement on her property to the tower. Fred stated that it is just an easement to get up to the tower and both houses to have frontage. Bill asked Barbara if she has a preference. She would leave it the way it is. It is maintained by the tower and they put the gravel down, plow it in the winter. There is no traffic just once a month when they go up to check on the towers. Bill stated that she would leave the width the way it is now but provide an easement in each property owners= deed for use of the total width of the road. Barbara stated that this is what she would like to do. Darin was concerned about the water for the barn and he would like to see a proposed zoning setback table. Barbara stated that the previous owners used to have Arabian horses so there must be a pretty big spring or well because they always have water. Fred requested a copy of the deed with the easement up to the tower for our record. Barbara will provide this. Roxanne stated that they should note the deed on the map in the notes as well as add the signature blocks for the owner=s signature and the Planning Board signatures.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR GIAMPIETRO, CASE #2009-22, MINOR SUBDIVISION, SECONDED BY BILL. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
It was agreed by the Board that the Conditional Use Permit application previously submitted and this application will be dealt with together.
TUCKER POND (lands of Esopus Estates LLC): Case #2009-23 B Site Plan Review: On-site physical changes B 96
East Main St. @ Sacket St. and Kline La., Port Ewen; SBL:
56.060-3-25.01 thru 25.16
Charles Wesley recused himself and left the room at 7:30 p.m.
Joseph Berger, engineer, and Tovi Mermelstien were present to represent this application. Letter granting them permission to act on the owners behalf has been placed in the file.
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 10/14/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file. Myles stated that the biggest thing that is missing from the submission is an easement for the Town for the drainage.
Joseph Berger said that he looked at the site to see what they needed to do to bring the site up to meet the standards. They did a little bit of grading to soften where you come in. They have three retaining walls; 2 walls 5= in height and 1 wall a little more than 2= in height. They propose a swale along the edge of the driveway to cut the water from the silt. They would like to offer the Town a blanket easement which will allow them more flexibility to come in and work as needed verses a very strict 20= easement.
Applicant was told that we will need a letter in writing from the Highway Superintendent regarding the curb cut.
Bill questioned the possibility of a safety issue regarding someone falling off of the retaining wall down into the paved area. Joe stated that he does not believe so. On one side the retaining wall will be either level or slanted in. Discussion continued regarding this issue. Joe stated that they are way down below the road itself. Joe stated that anyone could fall anywhere along that area since it is a steep slope. Joe stated that this is the same problem anywhere along the hillside, anywhere they can get through they can fall down. This is a very steep slope there.
Roxanne stated that Fred spent a lot of time on that slope along with our Building Inspector and she will defer to him on this issue. Fred thought that the slope was steeper than what it is shown on the maps. He would like to see the house on the top of the hill shown on the map. He would like to see the grades going back to that house. Fred stated what is shown on the map would appear to work. The property above has changed hands. The vegetation on the slope to some extent is stabilizing it but it is not good vegetation. Joe stated that they would love to see the neighbor plant clover or something sturdier than what they have. Fred stated that it might be a nice offer for you to make to the neighbor since it is going to be unsightly and it is going to the front of your building. Tovi stated that he does not think that they will have an issue with replanting if the neighbor is agreeable.
Tovi stated that the main point is that the property has been like this for at least 2 years and we have had a lot of wet weather in the last year and there has been almost zero erosion. Fred agrees with this. Tovi stated that he has been on the property several times over the last year and there was zero erosion on the property, no puddles, no ponding and no water issue. Tovi stated that he believes that the main issue is that the fact that the previous builder over-dug on the one side and the concern was that the building would end up in the parking lot. Over the last 2 years this has not happened and the slope stabilized itself pretty well. It is not the preferred type of vegetation that we have there but it is still stabilized and it is basically not an issue.
Fred stated that the last time we did have a landscaping plan. Tovi stated that the landscaping and lighting will not change. This was previously approved. Roxanne stated that this is what it is unless they wish to change it because we can not make that change. Applicant will need to show the retaining wall on the plans. The maps will need to be updated. Darin stated that they need to keep the same count so if they have to move one then they need to place it some other placed. If we can not change the plan, we can not change it either. Fred stated that we would probably need a Soil and Erosion Plan. Darin asked about some kind of a Drainage Study. Roxanne stated that this is out of our hands. We have a legal ruling on this application and we are limited in what we can do. They filed an Article 78 back in 1989 based on the original Site Plan. Darin was informed that there is a copy of the legal opinion attached to Myles review. Darin asked to see a copy of the Court Decision (Article 78). Roxanne stated that it is in the old file. Darin stated that he knows that there is a problem with drainage in that area. Roxanne stated that this pre-dates MS4 and as such they do not come under that. Darin stated that he understands that it was approved before but he hopes that a Drainage Study was done at that time. Roxanne stated that she believes that a Drainage Study was done but it is not what we would be looking for regarding MS4.
Roxanne stated because of the Article 78 Decision the only things that we can address are the parking, curb cuts, retaining wall and the easement. Tovi stated that they are ready to give whatever the Town wants for the easement. Roxanne stated that they need to have their attorney write up the easement and we will submit it to the Planning Board attorney for review. Joe asked if the town would be agreeable to a blanket easement. The blanket will give you access without obligation. Technically when you give a strict easement the Highway Department can not go outside that easement. Roxanne stated that we will need their attorney to talk to our attorney and in order to do that we will need to establish an Escrow Account. Tovi questioned whose responsibility the pond will be. Roxanne informed him that the Town will not be responsible for the pond. Joe stated that you would want the right to maintain the pond but not the responsibility and the right to maintain the storm sewers without the responsibility. The Town will want the right of entrance.
Bill again raised the issue of someone falling from the retaining wall if someone decided to take a shortcut through that area. Joe stated that you have 6= from the main road and then the 5= from the retaining wall. Joe thinks that this is just as dangerous as someone falling down from where the storm sewer is. The danger on the whole slope is almost identical. Bill questioned if it would be of benefit to placing a small fence in that area. Joe stated that the fence would collect debris and it would start impeding the flow of water and you would then have issues of drainage. You would want the water to flow down the hill uniformly onto the site.
Fred stated that it is confusing because you are not showing any regrading around the retaining walls. Joe stating that they will be putting back right where the existing contour is so there really will not be any regrading. They will be slicing in, putting them in and then stabilizing the slope. Roxanne asked if there is a gap between the retaining wall and the slope. Joe stated that there is not. It will be right up against the slope. Fred stated that he knows what they are saying but they are going to have to do some regrading. Darin stated that it is a temporary regrading. In the plan, they show final grading not the intermediate contours as they get constructed. Darin questioned about putting a guardrail in this area since posts have already been put in. Tovi stated that this is really a Town concern since it is an existing concern. Darin questioned the Fire Truck pull-up area and questioned if it was going to be marked. Tovi stated that they can certainly do this. Fred stated that we will probably need a new Parking Plan since there have been some changes. Darin thinks that in the northern most retaining wall they may have to pull it in a little so that it is not on the neighbor=s property. Joe said that the idea is to cut right on the property line and build up against it.
Fred stated that he knows that Darin has concerns about the drainage and it will be compounded when the bank goes in. Darin stated that he just wants to make sure that there is one in the file. Roxanne stated that they applied for the Building Permit in 1993 and it remains valid. They follow 1993 rules. Joe stated that there is an existing 24@ pipe going into the basin and there are two other 12@ pipes that go out to an existing 18@ pipe. It seems to be working. Tovi stated that he does not think they have had any complaints over the last 2 years. Tovi stated that he was hired about 18 months ago by the owner and has been authorized to represent the owner. The property has been sitting for a long time and he knows that the town and the surrounding property owners would like to see something done with it as soon as possible. They would like to get the retaining walls and the infrastructure in before winter. Tovi stated that on one building the interior is approximately 95% complete and the other building is just past the point of roughing. He believes it is either before installation or just after installation. If they get approval for site work, one building can be completed in about two months if they can get the site work in before the winter. Tovi stated that right now there is no water coming into the building right now. Fred stated that they have 2= of water in the basement. Tovi stated that it is a crawl space and this is correct. The only thing that will create a problem will be the moisture. Roxanne stated that this will need to go through engineering review to review the pieces that we legally can review and we will need to send it to our attorney for review of the easement. Roxanne felt that they would need to set up an Escrow Account in the amount of $3,000.00. Roxanne stated that their attorney will need to write the draft for the easement and our attorney will review it.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO OPEN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00 FOR TUCKER POND, CASE #2009-23, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Fred stated that they will need to show their utilities on the plans. Tovi asked if they could get an approval subject to engineering approval. Roxanne stated that they are not at that point yet. Applicant needs to update the Landscaping Plan, Lighting Plan, Utility Plan and the Parking Plan relevant to changes they are making. They will show the house up on the top of the hill on the map.
Roxanne stated that if the next set of plans is good then the Board will probably give you Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan approval and will send this to the engineer.
Charlie returned to the Board as of 8:08 p.m.
GRAY: Case #2009-17 B Minor Subdivision B 1863 Broadway (US Route 9W,
State Hwy. 5508), West Park; SBL: 80.001-4-4.2
Camilla Gray was present. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 10/15/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file.
It was recommended that the applicant talk to DOT about the conceptual location for possible access to Lot #2.
Camilla stated that she had a meeting with the engineer and the Public Relations person from CSX and she is in the process of filling out an application which is a new situation which is called a Railroad Crossing Agreement. This application is just for her and it does not give the new parties a right-of-way. They could cross over it but it does not clear liability for her. They have no problem with her subdividing the land the way she explained it to them and they are going to put her crossing back in as soon as she gets the form filled out and the agreement is set up. If she sells the land, at that point in time prior to closing the new owners will enter into a Railroad Crossing Agreement with CSX. This agreement will cover recreational use only. Camilla explained that the deed goes back hundreds of years ago when the railroad came in. Now they have a second track down there and the trains are going much faster it has definitely put limitations on crossing it the way they normally did so now they need this agreement with the railroad. She did check with the neighbors down there to ask them if they would allow her just to cross over but they do not want to do that. She feels that CSX is willing to work with her.
Charlie asked if on Lot #2 the applicant was going to move the house back to conform with the setbacks have you looked at the possibility of moving the driveway out right on that lot rather than crossing over onto Lot #1? She stated that there is definitely a good amount of frontage; she thinks there is enough frontage. They would prefer not to put another driveway in but they will have to talk to DOT. She stated that it is a nice building lot and she thinks there is enough frontage if they have to move it back. There is an existing driveway and right now they come in one and go out the other but you can come in either one. Personally she thinks that it would be easier to use the one driveway that is there. Fred stated that the more he looks at that coming from the south they will be right in front of her house all the time. She would only be selling it to one party and she really does not have a problem with that. Camilla stated that she has parking spaces. There is plenty of room to park. They have five spots off of the driveway. Fred stated that just because it is shown does not mean that they have to put it in. She understands that. Camilla asked about the possibility of a Public Hearing being scheduled. Camilla stated that what the Board is saying is that she needs to have DOT look at the spot for possible curb cut and she has to have the agreement with CSX before a Public Hearing. Myles and Roxanne stated that the CSX agreement could be a condition of approval. The more important thing is to have DOT look at the spot and get something in writing from them. They will need to redo the plan and move the house back for the setback and put the disturbance information on Lot #2. Health Department approval could also be a condition. We would not sign the maps until we received a copy of the CSX Agreement and Health Department approval. She should submit her information for County Board of Health approval since this takes some time.
House will need to be set back 65= from the center line of the proposed easement and disturbance information for Lot #2 will need to be provided. . Fred stated that we are going to have separate lots (top and bottom) Lot #1 and Lot #2 which are going to be considered one lot and there will need to be a note on the maps stating that will always be viewed as one lot in a common deed not to be separated.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRAY, CASE #2009-17 FOR 11/19/09 AT 7:10 PM SUBJECT TO A LETTER FROM NYSDOT, NOTE ON THE MAP REGARDING TWO SEPARATE LOTS (LOT #1 AND LOT #2 WILL ALWAYS BE VIEWED AS ONE LOT EACH IN A COMMON DEED B TOP AND BOTTOM) , ADJUSTING THE SETBACK FOR LOT #2 SO THAT IT IS 65= FROM THE PROPOSED CENTER LINE, DISTURBANCE NEEDS TO BE SHOWN FOR LOT #2 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE KNOW THAT THE EASEMENT FOR THE CSX CROSSING AND APPROVAL FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WILL FOLLOW AND WILL BE CONDITIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
FRED MADE A MOTION TO REFER GRAY, CASE #2009-17 TO THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
ALEO: Case #2009-14 & Case #2009-13 B Conditional Use Permit and Lot Line
Adjustment B 210 B 218 Hasbrouck Avenue (Town Hwy 909) @
Spring St., Port Ewen; SBL: 56.059-4-5
Roxanne recused herself from the Board at 8:32 p.m. and left the room. Vice-Chairman Fred Zimmer took over as Co-Chair for the next two items on the agenda.
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 10/15/09, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Myles stated that the Board gave Dr. Aleo four conditions for Sketch Plan approval. One condition was a drainage study. The Board wanted to see some calculations before and after design for a 10 year storm event, 24 hour rainfall duration just to see if the 500 gal. drywell is adequate in size for that particular event. The maps showed an easement for the Town drainage system (underground lines to the east side of the property). We need easement language that will be reviewed by the Planning Board attorney. We have a profile which shows a proposed driveway which shows a proposed 6.72% grade. There is no grading plan showing proposed contours on the driveway and it will be up to the Board as to whether they do or do not want this. The fourth condition was the continuation of the underground drain pipe. We received this evening a copy of the tax map with something sketched on it. (The Building Inspector brought this in this afternoon.)
Letter submitted by Mr. Robert Carpenter signed by Dr. Aleo giving him permission to represent him for this application. Mr. Carpenter brought with him updated maps that could not be accepted into the record since they were not received by the deadline date for this meeting. These maps and any additional information will need to be submitted for the next deadline date which will be November 5, 2009.
Darin asked if we received drainage from the engineer regarding the dry well. We did not. Robert asked if the only water that the Board is concerned about is the run-off from the roof. Fred stated that we are concerned about the difference between the before and after runoff from the lot. Robert stated that there are three drop drains in front that the Highway Department said go directly to the creek. Fred stated that we want to know the increased flow into those drop drains.
Fred explained to Robert that with a Conditional Use Permit we are required to have a Public Hearing. We already know that there is a drainage problem in this area and at the Public Hearing we need to be prepared to answer questions concerning the drainage. Following additional discussion regarding the drainage Fred explained the need for this information so that the Board can be prepared for the questions that will arise from the Public Hearing. We need a very simple engineering study for a 10 year 24 hour storm. Darin stated that there is a TR55 method available on line.
Robert questioned if there is a feeling that there is a problem there. Fred stated that he knows that there is a problem across the street. Robert stated that he has been there and looked and the pump across the street is running 24-7 into the Town drain which is in violation. They spoke to the Highway Superintendent and he does not want them to put a pipe in. There we told them that he wants them to put a swale. On the new maps, they show a swale coming from the pipe down into the drainage for an overflow. Robert stated that the neighbor across the street is 9= below the road surface and this property is up 6= from the road. Robert stated that after this discussion he understands the problem.
Charlie asked what the Highway Superintendent had to say about the run off from the site. Fred stated that this is more our realm than his. Fred believes that he does not want to put any more water into the drainage system. We are trying to minimize what goes into the drainage system as best as we can.
Darin stated that rather than doing a dry well there are other things they could do to detain water on the site. There are things called rain gardens which are usually less expensive than a 500 gallon tank. This is essentially just a shallow depression that is filled with plants. Charlie asked if this could be tied in with the suggested landscape buffer. Darin stated that this is possible. Charlie stated that this would be an opportunity to take care of two things at once if they wanted to go this way.
Fred asked if we are going to accept the driveway profile.
BILL MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DRIVEWAY PROFILE, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
HUDSON VALLEY SCHOOLS OF ADVANCED AESTHETIC SKIN CARE & MASSAGE THERAPY: Case #2008-18 B 1723 Broadway (US Route 9W; State
Hwy. 5508), West Park; SBL: 80.001-3-23
Letter received from Maria Ferguson dated 10/12/09 regarding release of the $5,000.00 Letter of Credit that the Town held for the landscaping at the school. A letter was received from Tim Keefe, Building Inspector dated 10/19/09 stating that he inspected the property and he is satisfied and that we can release the Letter of Credit.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO RELEASE THE LETTER OF CREDIT FOR $5,000.00 FOR THE HUDSON VALLEY SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AESTHETIC SKIN CARE AND MASSAGE THERAPY, CASE #2008-18, SECONDED BY CHARLIE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Fred stepped down as Vice-Chair at 9:00 p.m. and Roxanne returned to the Board as Chair.
Joseph Ippolito B 1196 Old Post Road B Area Variance B Application for a 2 car garage in front yard in violation of Section 123.21.C(5)(a) of the Town of Esopus Zoning Law. This is a proposed garage. It is not an existing garage.
Following some discussion it was felt that the Code directs this to the Planning Board. Myles stated that the garage is going to be 200= more or less off the road. The required front yard in that district is 40=. The garage architecturally is in front of the house but it is not within the required front yard setback so this is not a violation. Putting the garage in front of the house is something that he thinks this Board looks at. He reads the code as them meeting the required front yard setback. Myles will discuss this with the Building Inspector. This should be a Site Plan.
The Board will comment back to the ZBA stating that this is not within the purview of the ZBA and it belongs before the Planning Board.
DARIN MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY BILL. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 PM.
NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: November 19, 2009
DEADLINE DATE: November 5, 2009
NEXT PRE-SUBMISSION: November 4, 2009
April OnetoPlanning Board Secretary