TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2006
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
Russ Shultis – Excused
ALSO PRESENT: Dan Shuster, Shuster Associates
Myles Putman, Shuster Associates
At 7:10 p.m., Chairperson Roxanne Pecora called the meeting of the Town of Esopus Planning Board to order beginning with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Roxanne then advised the public of the building’s fire exits and roll call was taken.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE OCTOBER 23, 2006 MINUTES, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Rifton Fire District)…………………………………..$ 1,690.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Somerset – Hudson Point – PUD)….………………...$ 767.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Birchez Assoc – The Birches @ Esopus)…………….$ 2,015.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Port Ewen Housing – The Meadows)………………...$ 130.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Rondout Hills)………………………………………...$ 585.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Mountain View – Bellaire Ridge)…………………….$ 1,365.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Planning Board Business – La Mirage)………….……$ 117.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Planning Board Business)…………………………….$ 546.00
Shuster Associates (Retainer – 11/06 & Workshops)...………………………..$ 2,000.00
Shuster Associates (Somerset – Hudson Point – PUD)………………………..$ 3,480.00
Fairweather Consulting (Somerset – Hudson Point – PUD)…………………..$ 540.00
Shuster Associates (Somerset – Hudson Point – PUD)………………………..$ 3,335.00
Shuster Associates (Retainer – 10/06 & Workshops)………………………….$ 2,000.00
Clough Harbour & Assoc. (Somerset – Hudson Point – PUD)………………..$ 240.00
Clough Harbour & Assoc. (Mountain View – Bellaire Ridge)………………...$ 1,446.00
Clough Harbour & Assoc. (Somerset – Hudson Point – PUD)………………..$ 2,082.00
April Oneto (Secretarial Services)……………………………………………….53 Hours
LINDA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED AND READ, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0.
GOLDIN – (RACHEL’S DAUGHTERS) – CASE #2005-13 – 850 Old Post Road,
Three lot subdivision of lands previously owned by Todd Schroeter. Applicant Reeni Goldin present. Ms. Goldin is requesting that the Planning Board Attorney, Peter. C. Graham, Esq. render an opinion in writing regarding restriction placed on plat for no further subdivision of this property. Ms. Goldin has provided two checks in the amount of $250.00 each to set an Escrow Account. Chairperson Pecora stated that after Peter C. Graham, Esq. did some research into the matter it was discovered that Mr. Schroeter never followed through by placing this restriction in the deeds and therefore the statement on the plat is essentially null and void. Ms. Goldin is requesting something in writing from Peter C. Graham, Esq. Following some discussion it was determined that an Escrow Account needs to be established in the amount of $500.00 for Peter C. Graham, Esq. to render an opinion to Ms. Goldin. Chairperson Pecora stated that Peter C. Graham, Esq. has informed her that his bill will not exceed $500.00 as he already has done the research with which to write his opinion.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO SET UP AN ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR $500.00 FOR CASE #2005-13, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
KOBELT-DANOSKY – Case #2006-28 – 14 Cedar Street, Rifton
SBL: 71.030-1-31.2 – Accessory Apartment (Conditional
Myles Putman read Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Tracy Kobelt-Danosky , applicant, present.
Applicant is proposing to provide a second dwelling unit in her home for a family member by adding a kitchen to provide separate living quarters in a recently built split level house. House is in an R-12 district and has its own well and septic system and is on a piece of property that is 0.624 acres. There appears to be adequate parking on the site and there will be no additional bedrooms added. Following some discussion applicant was informed that the proposal does not meet at least three of the criteria for granting a conditional use permit for an accessory apartment. The applicant was referred to the ZBA to request a variance to the standards of 123-13.D(1) through (3). In the event the variances are granted, the Planning Board must review a site plan and hold a public hearing and make a referral of a complete submission to the County Planning Board. The Board will require proof that the existing septic system is of a proper design capacity and operating condition.
GODBEY/MARSHALL: Case #2006-27 – Lot Line Adjustment w/lands of A.
Dorene Marshall – 51 Dashville Road; 1237 Old Post Rd.
SBL: 71.001-2-78 (Godbey) & 42 (Marshall)
Myles Putman read Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Mark McEnery, Planner, Brooks & Brooks, present for applicant. Letter dated 12/8/06 received from Mr. McEnery requesting waiver of public hearing pursuant to Section 107.16-a. of the Town of Esopus Subdivision Regulations read by Roxanne. Copy placed in file.
Godbey’s are giving one half of their 11 acre vacant lot to the Marshall’s pursuant to a Court Order. The applicants’ parcel has no deeded street frontage, but is afforded access by two private easements. Site is in the R-40 District. Some discussion took place regarding whether a Building Permit can be issued for a lot with no road frontage and access through easement. On this matter it was felt that a determination should be requested from the Building Inspector.
Memo dated 12/11/06 received from Timothy Keefe, Town of Esopus Building Inspector read by Roxanne stating that it is the Building Department’s opinion that the 37’ easement/row is sufficient for a building lot and in this case would act as the required frontage for the new lot. It further stated that the lot in its present state pre-exists zoning and the lot line adjustment would not make the new lot any more non-conforming than it already is. Copy placed in file.
Marshall is a land locked parcel but they have access along Old Post Road. New sets of maps presented to Board at the meeting.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2006-27 PURSUANT TO 107.16 A OF THE SUBDIVISION CODE, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
FRED MADE A MOTION THAT WE MAKE A DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO SEQR AND GRANT THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR GODBEY/MARSHALL CASE #2006-27, AND THE APPLICNT PROVIDE 6 PAPER COPIES WITH THE SIGNATURES OF BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
SOMERSET (HUDSON POINT PUD): Case #2005-03
Joseph P. Eriole, Esq, and Ralph Zucker, President Somerset Development, present for applicant.
Dan Shuster reviewed Draft of the Amended Findings Statement for the PUD and the updated revisions handed out this evening. The Findings Statement is the conclusion of the SEQR portion of the review. The Finding Statement establishes that the Planning Board has determined that the proposed Sketch Plan for the Hudson Point PUD will result in the same or less impacts to the environment than the Sketch Plan which was the basis for the original Statement of Findings approved by the Planning Board on December 14, 1992 and to send their conclusions and findings to the Town Board.
Dan handed out revised plans and reviewed with the Board the changes made in red. Following Dan’s review Mr. Eriole stated that the proposed numbers used for the office/retail development along 9W are for the total retail on the site. The office retail development has been reduced. He further stated that the applicant is going to pay its own way on the infrastructure costs for the sewer district and that the applicant will participate according to some arrangement reached with the Town Board for additional upgrades required to the water/sewer district. Roxanne informed the Board that there are pre-existing conditions from 1991 for the Sleightsburg/Connelly areas that need to be addressed by the water/sewer district regarding storm water (INI-Infiltration and Inflow) runoff going into the City of Kingston’s Sewer Treatment Plant that need to be taken into consideration.
Shuster Associates has been authorized to draft the Town Board’s Findings Statement.
Brief discussion took place regarding Fairweather Consulting’s October 19, 2006 “Draft” report and their November 16, 2006 report submitted and made a part of the record regarding Comparative Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Hudson Point Project.
Fred Zimmer handed out his review of the Fiscal Analysis and it is his opinion that the surplus is not what the Findings Statement would lead us to believe. Somerset stated that they took a conservative approach. Dan stated that the value of the open space is reflected in the assessment of the property. Fred questioned who would be holding the deeds on the open space. The Board was informed that the Homeowners Association will hold the deeds on the open space and will be collecting money during the course of the year to pay the taxes on this land. Dan questioned if the Board would be comfortable with a break-even analysis. The Board believed they would be satisfied with this. Dan informed the Board that the Findings Statement is the final chapter and if the Board approves this it is their action. The Town Board will have to approve there own Findings Statement.
Dennis questioned if there was some methodology being put in place to prevent purchasing for resale and gain. He questioned if they were planning on putting a time limit on resale. Dan stated that one of the things included in the local law will be a set of standards and guidelines to manage the affordable housing component. John questioned at what point mitigating measures such as a traffic light and turning lanes will kick in. He was informed that this will basically be a determination made by the Town and New York State and it is based on a level of service. John questioned if the applicant will be paying for any mitigation expense regarding the traffic. Mr. Eriole stated that they will pay for the expense. Dan stated that they are going to have to continually update traffic counts and provide analysis. They will be responsible for the expense of the traffic signal and at that time they will have to put into place a maintenance agreement where they will hire someone to maintain this. Mr. Zucker stated that Somerset will place a bond to cover this expense.
Waterfront Advisory Board submitted their recommendations and comments dated 10/25/06 concerning the Hudson Point Public Hearing held by Town Board, copy placed in file. The visual impacts will change according to review of the site plan. The overall feeling of the Board was that this is certainly a better plan than the old plan.
Response received from Ulster County Planning Board with their recommendations dated 11/01/06 regarding the referral from the Town Board. Copy placed in file. John Collins Engineers, P.C. submitted letter dated 11/10/06 with their comments regarding information sent to them from Clough Harbour & Associates relative to the traffic study submitted by the applicant. Copy placed in file.
LINDA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED STATEMENT OF FINDINGS ON SOMERSET (HUDSON POINT PUD) CASE #2005-03, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH VOTE OF 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
PORT EWEN HOUSING (THE MEADOWS): Case #2006-10 – Major subdivision
Salem St.; Park Lane; Eugene St., Port Ewen – SBL 56.067-6-20
Myles Putman read Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Applicant represented by Don Snyder and Stanley Schultzman, Esq.
This project is still in the Sketch Plan Review Stage with the major issues being the variances for lot 27 and 28 and the language on the map concerning notations regarding the southerly connection onto the Town Hall site; and the redesign by the project sponsor in the event that the Mountain View Project’s Site Plan is not implemented.
The sketch map shows a revised layout for 28 building lots. Lot 7 has been expanded to a double width; the lot with access from Park Lane has been renumbered as lot 27 and the lot with access from Salem Street has been renumbered as Lot 28. Lots 1 through 26 will have access from the proposed road system. Lots 27 and 28 do not meet the standards for flag lots as set forth in zoning law. Both lots meet the definition of a flag lot and both fall short of the area requirements and Lot 28 falls short of frontage requirement by 15 feet. Area variances are being pursued from the ZBA.
Location of a future connection to the Town Hall property is referenced in a note on the plat which reads a 50’ X 127’ land to be dedicated fee simple to Town of Esopus for interconnection purposes to town owned property. The exact location along the Southern property line is to be determined. The map notes that Lot 8 is voided as a building lot, contingent upon adjacent property related events. Provision is made for a hammerhead turning area t the boundary with the Mountain View site.
Dennis questioned item 2 on the map concerning remaining land of lot 8 being joined to lot 7. He wanted to know what note 2 meant. He feels that note 2 should be removed. Applicants’ representative concurred. Chuck is still concerned about the lots 27 and 28 and feels that there is a better way to design these lots.
LINDA MADE A MOTION TO GRANT SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON THE AREA VARIANCES BEING GRANTED BY THE ZBA AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A REVISED SKETCH PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, SECONDED BY JOHN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-1. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Mr. Snyder submitted a Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation. Myles will review and forward copy to NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation.
PATRICK: Case #2006-13 – Patrick Living Trust Major re-subdivision –
92 Parker Avenue, SBL: 72.009-3-5.2
Myles Putman read Shuster Associates Review, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Applicant represented by Michael Moriello, Esq., and Mr. Zell.
The subdivision will split two lots from a 2004 subdivision into five building lots. All lots are proposed to have frontage on parker Avenue. One flag lot is proposed. The length of the access strip complies with the standards of 123-21.D(5) of the zoning law and a waiver is not necessary. A shared access is proposed onto Parker Avenue for Lot 2B and 2C and a second shared access is proposed for Lots 2D and 2E and a common use right of way is proposed in both instances. The map shows disturbance information, location of house sites, driveways, septic area and wells.
Memo received from Tim Keefe, Town of Esopus Building Inspector, dated 12/11/06 in reference to Turning Easement at the end of Parker Lane being sufficient for the purpose of a 5 Lot subdivision as long as Parker Lane and the turn around are directly connected permanently for access. Copy placed in file.
Health Department approvals are required as part of subdivision approval. EAF Part I revised and copy placed in file. Dennis asked if the applicant would continue to pursue something in writing from the Fire Department regarding the turn around for fire trucks. Discussion followed amongst the Board Members. They would like to see a memo from the Esopus Fire Chief specifically reviewing if a fire truck can turn around on Parker Lane. Myles was asked about the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation Process. Letter is to be sent after the Board has reviewed application. Applicant requested to put topography information on the map. Letter from Town Highway Superintendent Alan Larkin received dated 11/15/06 approving driveway access locations. Driveway grades will be worked on and are not to exceed 12%. Applicant is to perform deep hole testing and obtain Health Department approval. Referral needs to be made to the Waterfront Advisory Board when Public Hearing is scheduled which will happen after revised maps and environmental forms are received. A revised copy of the full FEAF – Part I was provided by the applicant at the meeting.
MOUNTAINVIEW (Belleaire Ridge, LLC): Case #2005-03 – Major Re-subdivision
Mountainview Avenue; May Park Terrace, Port Ewen
Myles Putman read Shuster Associates Report, copy placed in file and copy given to applicant. Terri Hahn and Chuck Genck were present representing applicant. Copy of Quick Claim Deed presented to Board and placed in file.
Applicant was able to purchase the piece of property in question from Mr. Berg giving them the Agnes Street interconnection. Second access to this subdivision is no longer an issue. Planning Board received a copy of the letter sent to Peter C. Graham, Esq., Planning Board attorney, dated 11/8/06 from Michael K. Lambert, Esq. on behalf of the Board of Education. This was in response to Peter C. Graham, Esq’s letter dated 10/23/06 regarding Mountainview’s proposal to give the school district a walkway through the Mountainview property to the elementary school. Letter read by Chairperson Pecora and copy placed in file. Terri Hahn stated that they still plan to put in the walkway.
The plans are missing information on proposed electric, gas and communication utility services. Applicant should begin discussions with Port Ewen Fire District officials on proposed layout of fire hydrants. Any proposed easements for the storm water facilities should be clearly delineated on the maps and proposed easements to control disturbance of wetlands should be included on the maps. Street names should be designated and all proposed names should be reviewed by Town Assessor’s Office and the Port Ewen Post Office before being approved by the Town Planning Board and the County tax Map Office. Street sign detail drawing should be added to the detail sheets. Metes and bounds for each lot an lot areas not provided. This is a requirement for Final Plat submission as per 107-29.c(2). No mechanism provided for protection of wetlands or drainage facilities. This needs to be addressed. Applicant will pursue creation of drainage district. The plat should bear appropriate offers of cession to the town for proposed roads and utilities. Planning Board should consider a no further re-subdivision restriction on the larger proposed lots. John stated that we will need to determine how to properly proceed with this to ensure compliance. Chairperson Pecora will need to discuss with Peter C. Graham, Esq. when the Board is ready for this. Once plans are modified to address these items copies should be forwarded to the Town’s consulting engineer. A public hearing should be scheduled after engineering review. SEQR Determination should not be made until the engineer’s review of preliminary plat is completed. The issue of underground utilities (as required per our Zoning Code) should be looked at and Myles will defer to the engineering review for this.
Roxanne spoke with Peter Lilholt, Engineer, Clough Harbour, regarding their review. Applicant presently has $3,635 in the Escrow Account and this should cover the first review costs but will need to be replenished after that point. Subsequent to meeting it was determined that all of the prior bills had not been posted and Escrow was approximately one half of this amount. Chairperson Pecora notified applicant of this. Planning Board needs to let Clough Harbour know if there is anything specific they would like them to look at. They do a review of everything but will concentrate on areas that we request. Following some discussion it was felt that they need to review drainage, soil and erosion control and traffic plan with May Park Terrace. Applicant stated that Traffic Analysis was done with and without May Park Terrace.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED SKETCH PLAN FOR MOUNTAINVIEW (BELLAIRE RIDGE) SUBDIVISION, CASE #2005-05, SECONDED BY LINDA. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
FRED MADE A MOTION TO REFER MOUNTAINVIEW (BELLAIRE RIDGE) SUBDIVISION TO PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER, CLOUGH HARBOUR, FOR REVIEW OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WITH MAY PARK TERRACES, DRAINAGE, SOIL AND EROSION CONTROL AND ANYTHING ELSE THEY FEEL NECESSARY FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT. A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE BOARD IS ACCEPTABLE, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE ESCROW ACCOUNT BY $5,000.00 FOR MOUNTAINVIEW (BELLAIRE RIDGE) CASE #2005-05, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
BIRCHEZ (BIRCHES at Esopus): Subdivision – Case #2006-07 & Site Plan –
Case #2006-08 – Major subdivision and Conditional use permit –
15-51 Sorbello Lane, Port Ewen
Myles Putman reviewed Shuster Associates Reports re: Review of Visual Analysis and Review of Revised Submission, copies placed in file and copy of report given to applicants. Nadine Shadlock, Esq., and Ed Hernandez, Engineer, present representing applicant.
Letter from Peter C. Graham, Planning Board Attorney, to Nadine Shadlock, Esq., Birches Attorney dated 11/28/06 regarding the density analysis. Letter read by Roxanne and copy placed in file. Letter to Steve Aaron, Birches Associates, LLC, dated 11/27/06 from Roxanne Pecora, Planning Board Chair, regarding present status of approvals for the above project. Copy placed in file.
Applicant was asked if they are still going to pursue change(s) to the Town’s Senior Overlay Law (123-13.v(3) via the Town Board or are they going to seek a variance as has been recommended by this Board previously as to the proper determination of maximum site density for the senior citizen housing on proposed Lot 5. Applicant’s attorney stated that she is still pursuing a change to the law and spoke to Peter C. Graham, Esq. earlier today on it again since the law has implications for future projects of this type and really needs to be changed to address the appropriate issues. Applicant was reminded by Chairperson Pecora that the process would be longer to change the law via the Town Board rather than to seek a variance via the ZBA. She further stated that it is the applicant’s option as to how they want to proceed as per Peter C. Graham Esq’s letter of 11/28/06.
Mr. Hernandez stated that the building is actually 2 stories with ½ of building having walkout basement. He stated that they did a considerable amount of work on the visual analysis following the direction given to him by this Board and it is their opinion that there will be a very, very minimal impact and that the Board accept their Visual Impact Analysis so they can proceed with the rest of the SEQR Process.
Discussion took place regarding visual impact completed by applicant. Dennis voiced his dissatisfaction with the method and the fact that balloons were not used. Chuck felt that after the trees are removed to put in a retaining wall the visual impact from River Road will be significant since there will be no trees left in that area. Mr. Hernandez and Ms. Shadlock said that they worked with Saratoga Associates and felt that they followed the Board’s instructions from the October Meeting regarding the method used to complete the visual impact study. Dennis stated that he was not present at the last meeting and if he were he would not have agreed to not using the balloons. Chairperson Pecora confirmed that the applicant had followed the Board’s instructions.
Applicant stated that some of the visual impacts can be mitigated by the proper use of siding and roofing material and they are willing to work with the Board regarding this. Applicant inquired if they could work with our planning consultant directly to review proposed alternatives. Chairperson Pecora gave authorization for these discussions.
Applicant was questioned regarding what they intend to do with the slivers of land that are created by the road. Mr. Hernandez stated that he does not know what to do with those. They are part of the road easement and they do not want to retain those triangular pieces of land they are part of the road system. Applicant questioned about the retention pond. Mr. Hernandez stated that ½ of the water being drained in the pond is from the road system and he assumes that we would want to keep that a part of the road system.
Applicant will provide a channelization plan into the entrance from Broadway into Sorbello Lane. It was their intent to do that and this should be on the plans and they will put it on the plans.
Ms. Shadlock stated that they are attempting to work with the Town Board regarding the density issue. They were asked why they are working with the Town Board when they were sent to the Zoning Board. Nadine stated that there are several legal issues and she would like to get more input from Peter C. Graham, Planning Board Attorney. She stated that the Senior Overlay does not deduct for roads that are intended and Peter Graham agrees with this. She stated that when you apply for the Senior Overlay Statute it does not specify the type of development. She went through and studied the Town of Esopus Zoning Law regarding the multi-family statute verses a single dwelling unit and three bedroom apartments. She stated that an apartment and a house are not the same thing. They applied the multi-family density computations to the senior overlay. She stated that the senior overlay was drafted with another site in mind. Roxanne requested copy of Nadine’s original letter to Peter C. Graham, Esq. for the record. In looking at the multi-family law and the number of units she feels there is a strong argument of applying the density issue with the senior overlay. Roxanne stated that Peter C. Graham, Esq. suggested a variance as the best way to proceed with this issue.
Discussion took place regarding storm water drainage. Mr. Hernandez stated that the water will be discharged to culverts going under River Road. There are three culverts along River Road. The storm water will be treated and discharged out to the Hudson River. Mr. Hernandez further stated that they do not have to hold the peak flow they just have to treat the peak flow. Dennis questioned the retention pond whether we really want it on the Town’s property and stated that originally it was on a house lot. Applicant was informed that the Town will want the road but does not want to manage the drainage.
Mr. Hernandez stated that they have a copy of the outstanding issues and that they are going to do their best to address them. He further stated that we have been back and forth regarding the location of the building on the site and that this is a tough and challenging site to develop. They feel that the benefits of this project to the community out weigh that issue.
FRED MADE A MOTION TO REFER BIRCHEZ (BIRCHES) CASE #2006-07 AND CASE #2006-08 TO PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER, CLOUGH HARBOUR FOR REVIEW OF THE CURRENT DESIGN, SITE DISTURBANCE, SOIL EROSION, DRAINAGE STUDY AND REGRADING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
(Need to send Drainage Report with plans along with two reports from Shuster Associates and history of Planning Board Minutes. Board felt that it would be helpful for the Engineer to be present as well as submitting a written report of their findings.)
FRED MADE A MOTION TO INCREASE ESCROW FOR BIRCHES (BIRCHES) CASE #2006-07 AND CASE #2006-08 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000.00, SECONDED BY CHUCK. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED 6-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Applicant was informed that the density issue has to be resolved before the Planning Board can proceed.
Applicant asked if they can move ahead with SEQR. Chuck is not happy with visual analysis and would like to see modeling. John would like to see modeling. Dennis is not happy with report but has to step back since he was not present at the October meeting when applicant was given direction. Discussion ensued as the applicant was seeking approval of the visual analysis. Chairperson Pecora stated that the applicant had proceeded and followed the board’s direction and no further action is required to approve the visual impact. Other members of Board were satisfied.
Ms. Shadlock and Mr. Hernandez asked what the next step(s) would be in terms of the planning board process for their application. Myles Putman explained that the Birchez Subdivision application (Case 2006-07) is presently in the preliminary plat stage before the planning board. No approval will be granted until after a required public hearing is held. SEQR is to be done at the time action is taken on the preliminary plat. The public hearing will not be scheduled until the planning board’s engineer has reviewed the submission for completeness and substance. The project will then undergo final plat review and approval; final plat should reflect conditions set forth on the preliminary plat by the planning board.
The Conditional Use Permit (Case 2006-08) is presently undertaking substantive review before the planning board. No approval will be granted until after a required public hearing. SEQR will be decided at the time the decision is made on the conditional permit by the planning board. The public hearing will not be scheduled until the planning board engineer has reviewed the submission for completeness and substance. Approval of the conditional permit may include several conditions which would affect the “final” site plan, building permit and/or C.O. (certificate of occupancy).
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REFERRALS:
Rondout Hills, LLC – Requesting variance to limit second access for emergency access only road. Due to the physical limitations on this site Planning Board is in agreement with approval of this variance. Please inform the applicant that they must return to the Planning Board for Site Plan.
Philip Schaeffer – Applicant is requesting area and setback variance to build a one-family house. Location – Corner of Parsell Street and Third Avenue, Sleightsburg
Planning Board has no comments on this application.
Blue Stone, Inc. – Applicant is requesting area variance to 123.21B(1) to build multiple unit commercial buildings at ( location) 289 Broadway, Port Ewen; Cabin Lane cross street.
Planning Board recommends that this variance be denied since there is no buffer. However, if it is approved applicant needs to be informed that they have to come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval.
Charles & Karen Markle – Applicant is requesting setback variance to build two car garage – attach to existing house located at 216 Rogers Street, Port Ewen.
Planning Board has no objection to this variance.
Port Ewen Housing – Applicant is requesting area variance for road frontage (123-21.E(1) and the granting of a variance for 35’ of road frontage when the code calls for 50’.
It is the Planning Board’s position that this issue can be resolved by the developer redoing the layout on the site to incorporate Lots 27 and 28 into the existing Site Plan and not separate them out. However, if this variance is granted applicant needs to come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan.
Citivision, Inc. – Applicant is requesting use variance for existing buildings. Applicant converted two storage units to two two-family dwelling units in violation of zoning law.
Applicant needs to return to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review for storage units converted to dwelling units.
Citivision, Inc. – Order to Remedy Violation – Applicant is in violation of Section 123-9A – installation of soccer field at 126 Carney Road without Site Plan Review.
Applicant needs to come before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review.
LaBarbera – Applicant requesting use variance to operate a business in a residential area (used car lot).
Planning Board feels that this should be denied since this use should not be allowed in an R-12 District.
Manicone-Shanley – Applicant is requesting area variance to expand size of existing structure at 165 Lampman Avenue, Port Ewen – R12 Zone.
Planning Board has no comment.
Letter to LaMirage Attorney, Joseph Pisani, dated 12/14/06 from Planning Board Attorney, Peter C. Graham, informing them that applicant needs to file a proper site plan and appear before the Planning Board for approval. Chairperson Pecora reminded the Board that Supervisor Coutant has informed her that Peter C. Graham, Esq. is representing the Town Board in this case to reach a legal and binding settlement.
Planning Board has three seats up this year – 1 – Russ Shultis – needs to be replaced, 2 – Linda Smythe – seeking reappointment and 3 – Fred Zimmer – seeking reappointment.
Board asked for recommendations regarding Chairperson. It was the recommendation of the members to reappoint Roxanne Pecora as Chairperson for another term. Recommendations will be forwarded to the Town Board for their review and approval.
Consultant – Shuster Associates will no longer be the Planning Consultant for the Town of Esopus Planning Board. The Planning Board has negotiated with Myles Putman to remain as consultant operating under the name of M.L. Putman Consulting. Myles has agreed to two meetings per month if necessary. The third week of the month on a Wednesday will be dedicated to “New Business” and smaller applications. Workshop Meetings and discussion will be done at this meeting as well if needed. The fourth week of the month on a Thursday will be the original meeting dealing with “Old Business”. There will continue to be one “Deadline Date” and that will remain the second Thursday of the month. Based upon Planning Board applications the second meeting (Third Wednesday of the month) may not be necessary every month. Members will be informed of the Board’s needs when the agenda is prepared on submission deadline day.
The Board is recommending that Dan Shuster, Shuster Associates, continue with Hudson Point PUD (Somerset) until we reach the Site Plan Stage at which time Myles Putman will take over.
Planning Board would like to continue to retain Clough, Harbour as our Engineer and Peter C. Graham, Esq., as the Planning Board Attorney. The Board is recommending April Oneto remain as Planning Board Secretary.
Town Clerk Diane McCord addressed the board regarding the new planning board fees that become effective, January 1, 2007. Dennis Suraci agreed to be the liaison to the Town Clerk regarding any questions she may have.
Chairperson Pecora asked for a volunteer to act as liaison with the Ulster County Planning Board due to a change in the New York State Law. That individual would have to speak with Dennis Doyle or Rob Liebowitz concerning issues raised at our meeting. Chuck Snyder volunteered to do this. Chuck will also be working on a redesign of the Planning Board Application.
It was recommended that the Planning Board work on By-Laws that the Board operates under. Chairperson Pecora is looking for a volunteer to work on this. Members are thinking about it. We will return to this issue in the future.
Chairperson Pecora stated that it is necessary for us to add a Public Comment Section to our regular agenda. Public comment is for anything the public wants to bring forth and discuss which is not presently pending before the Board. The Board needs to look at issues other than those that are before the Board.
There is a new State Law requiring Planning Board Members to complete four (4) hours of education per year. This will need to be tracked and we will be working on a way to keep track of the training. This issue will be discussed further in the future.
Town of Esopus Town Supervisor, John Coutant, sent letter to Hyde Park and Rhinebeck Supervisors regarding river view property development in their Town and the need to inform all surrounding Towns. He has received responses and copies will be distributed to Planning Board Members upon receipt of the same. Michael DuPree new Chairman of the Hyde Park Planning Board has invited us to one of their meetings. They meet the first and third week of the month. Anybody interested in going please inform Chairperson Pecora to arrange this. The Town Supervisor would like to attend if we can determine a date that is workable for all of us.
CHUCK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:25 PM.
Next Monthly Meeting – Thursday, January 25, 2007 (Agenda Cutoff – January 11, 2007). *Additional Monthly Meeting – scheduled for January 17, 2007 if necessary. Members will be contacted regarding this meeting.
Next Pre-Submission will be January 4, 2007.
Planning Board Secretary