TOWN OF ESOPUS
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 17, 2008
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Roxanne Pecora, Chairperson
BOARD MEMBERS EXCUSED: Michael Sprague
Board member Chuck Snyder resigned from the Planning Board effective immediately.
ALSO PRESENT: 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.
This was the Planning Board’s first meeting in the New Town Hall.
Board members were asked if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes of the November 19, 2008 meeting. No corrections or changes made.
MIKE M. MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 19, 2008 MEETING, SECONDED BY DENNIS. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0.
Birchez Associates (Addendum Fee – out of Escrow)………………………$ 250.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (Port Ewen Housing)……………………………..$ 120.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (Month of November)…………………………….$ 2,250.00
M.L. Putman Consulting (Month of December)…………………………….$ 2,250.00
Clough Harbour (Port Ewen Housing)……………………………………....$ 950.95
Clough Harbour (Mountainview a.k.a. Bellaire Ridge)……………………..$ 130.00
Clough Harbour (Birchez)…………………………………………………...$ 685.02
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Somerset a.k.a. Esopus Lake)………………………$13,175.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Birchez)…………………………………………….$ 260.00
Peter C. Graham, Esq. (Town General)……………………………………..$ 927.50
April Oneto…………………………………………………………………...58 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 4-0.
FERGUSON (Hudson Valley School of Massage Therapy): Case #2008-18 – Condi-
tional Use Permit 1723 Broadway 9US Route 9W; State Hwy 5508);
West Park; SBL: 80.001-3-23
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 FERGUSON, CASE 2008-18, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
John Freeman, Meddenbach & Eggers, present along with applicant Maria Ferguson. John gave a brief overview of the proposed project.
Roxanne asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak. Roxanne stated that there were concerns raised by a Mr. Busick and Roxanne forwarded an e-mail to John Freeman regarding this. Maria Ferguson met with Mr. Busick and he seems to be satisfied. We have received correspondence from Ms. Ferguson in terms of her discussion with Mr. Busick.
Mr. Freeman stated that the Stormwater Plan was previously submitted and it does show the reductions in the peak flow. Watershed 2 is the watershed that goes south to the neighbor’s property. Roxanne stated that Mr. Busick was concerned about the cobblestone ditches. Mr. Busick has a map that shows them and is willing to show this map to anyone who is interested.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR.
FERGUSON (d/b/a “Hudson Valley School of Massage Therapy”): Case #2008-18
Conditional Use Permit – 1723 Broadway (US Route 9W; State Hwy 5508),
West Park; SBL: 80.001-3-23
John Freeman, Meddenbach & Eggers and Maria Ferguson, applicant, were present regarding this application.
Roxanne stated that the Planning Board received comments back from the Waterfront Advisory Board dated 11/26/08. Roxanne read their comments, copy placed in file. The Board does not have any comments.
Roxanne stated that the Planning Board received comments back from the Ulster County Planning Board of their review of this application on 12/03/08 with a required modification that additional landscaping be placed around the structure itself to help further enhance the aesthetics of the site should it become more visible from the road as a result of the change in use. Also, the applicant will require approval from the County Health Department to determine the adequacy of their proposed new septic system and 100% reserve area. Roxanne read the recommendations and a copy of this recommendation was placed in the file.
Roxanne also showed the Board a picture of the house that was in the Assessor’s office. This house dates back to 1825.
Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review date 12/10/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in the file. Myles questioned the well capacity cited in the EAF of 5 gallons per minute. He asked if this is from the existing well. Mr. Freeman stated that the well will be tested probably next week. He is expecting them to do a 72 hour pump test and samples will be taken to the lab for testing. They do not know the yield at this time. Myles noted three conditions of approval: 1. use of construction fencing to delineate disturbance areas; 2. a letter of credit for the landscaping; and 3. require exterior lights to be turned off after school hours (except where required for security purposes).
John stated that the Health Department has been sent plans. He spoke with them today and he stated that they were in agreement with everything but they asked him to send another map with the actual location of the project so sheet I-1 was sent. It may be a few weeks before they receive all of the data for the Board.
Discussion took place regarding the Ulster County Planning Board’s recommendation regarding additional foundation planting. The applicant is agreeable to do additional planting.
Dennis questioned if this application was going to be sent to Clough Harbour Engineering for review of the stormwater and run-off. Roxanne stated that we were not planning on sending this to Clough Harbour. Mike stated that it was not being sent because of what they have done with their-absorption of the run-off. Dennis stated that he thought every project we had was sent when it involves stormwater. Roxanne stated that some projects we do not send.
Dennis questioned if they are going to pave the parking area at all. John stated that they were not at this time, maybe in the future. Dennis stated that Item 4 is not a dustless surface and it is like mud in the wintertime. Dennis stated that he has had this as a parking lot for two years and it is the worse thing you want to live with. Water does not penetrate through it because the cars ride over it and compact it even more and you get puddles and gray water. If people walk in and out of your building with it it is going to be a mess. Dennis stated that if Maria is accepting that and this is being considered a permeable material why are they putting in a retention pond. The water will not make it to most of the basins. You will be dragging mud and every time a car leaves they will be leaving tracks of mud out onto Route 9W and she will have the NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) after them. He thinks they should consider paving at least a portion of it. He does not think that Item 4 is a dustless surface and he does not think that this was the intention in the Code Book when we wrote this.
Dennis stated that some of the trees that are being put in to buffer the neighbors are only 3 ft. high. He would like to see 4-6 ft. to block some of the view. At 3’, they are not going to block anything. The quantity is okay but he would recommend a taller tree.
The lights they are showing are 20 ft and they are contemporary and you have this older building with a lot of character and he would like to see a light that fits the building more and a little lower so that it does not stick out like a shopping center when it is lit up. He thinks it could be more secluded, lower level lighting and it could still provide all the protection they need for people walking in and out. He stated that there are a lot of light fixtures out there that could be a lot more fitting with the character of the house. Dennis asked what is going on with the garage. He sees a sidewalk in front of it and a sidewalk behind it. He asked if it is still a garage and can you still drive into it. John stated that it will not be a garage. It will be converted into part of the school. Dennis questioned if they could think about connecting the parking from the south of the building into the building. It looks like if they have an entrance from the patio area you may be able to put a short walkway into the patio from the parking and they would be able to get in without walking where the other cars are driving. Dennis stated that the other thing with the stone dust is that you can not paint stripes on it. This will be another problem with that many cars parking there how to control them to fit into the spaces provided.
Fred questioned the grade on the southern parking area as it looks like 8% grade. John stated that most of it is 6% but the very, very bottom of it is 8%. Fred feels that this is a steep grade. Fred stated that there is an area in the north parking lot that is relatively flat and he was wondering why they did that. John stated that the parking area was reduced to what they expect the initial demand will be but they are planning for more parking for the future if needed. Fred questioned the 1:1 slope. It is being cut away 1:1 and they are putting in stabilization measures. John stated that fill slopes are 2:1. Fred stated that cut slopes should be 2:1 as well. Mike stated that the thought was that they could get another 10 ft. without taking down trees. Some discussion took place regarding this. Fred states that you can do this if it stays dry. Dennis stated that the more trees you keep the better it will be. Dennis told the applicants that they did a great job in listening to the Board’s comments and putting them in the plans.
Roxanne asked Dennis if he considered all of his comments as suggestions. Dennis stated that he feels as a Planning Board they need to clarify the paving surface. He feels that we have never, since he has been on the Board, accepted stone dust as a paved surface. Mike asked that if they were going to pave the driveway with the parking surfaces stone dust does that meet our specifications? Myles stated that it should be an approved dustless surface as per Chapter 123, Section 24. Dennis stated that you would not even be able to stripe where you are parking the cars. Maria stated that right now at the school she has it is paved for maybe 20 ft as you pull in and then the rest of it is earth. Dennis stated that they are going to have to pave in a portion to meet DOT specifications. Dennis stated that even a binder is plowable. Dennis stated that he does not know where we are going with Item 4 because as soon as you pass it once we are setting a precedent.
He thinks we have to be careful where we are going with this decision. He knows the State will be after them because they will be dragging mud marks out onto the highway. Fred stated that truly the only dustless surface is blacktop or concrete but he thinks there has to be some discretion dependent upon the size and the traffic of the business. Dennis stated that some businesses pave wherever the cars drive but where they park they put in a gravel surface. He questioned if this would be acceptable that they pave wherever the cars are driving; the lanes, the entrance in, the main path but wherever the cars park use stone dust. Would this be an acceptable compromise? By doing it this way you could tick mark the edge of the blacktop for cars to be able to park within the parking space.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR FERGUSON, CASE #2008-18, CONDITONED UPON THE FOLLOWING:
1. PAVE WHEREVER THE CARS ARE DRIVING, THE LANES, THE ENTRANCE IN, THE MAIN PATH BUT WHEREVER THE CARS PARK USE STONE DUST;
2. CHANGE LIGHT POLES TO MATCH THE HOUSE AND MAKE POLES SHORTER;
3. INCREASE TREE HEIGHT TO 4-6 FT;
4. INCREASE PLANTING AROUND THE HOUSE (PER ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION);
5. ULSTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL;
6. CONSTRUCTION FENCING TO DELINEATE DISTURBANCE AREA;
7. A LETTER OF CREDIT FOR LANDSCAPING IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000.00 SHALL BE POSTED WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF THE TOWN OF ESOPUS TO COVER THE COST OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION. SAID LETTER OF CREDIT TO STAY IN EFFECT FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR (AFTER THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED, AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION MEASURES), INCLUDING REPLACEMENT COST FOR ANY TREE, SHRUB OR GROUND COVER THAT DIES WITHIN THIS ONE YEAR PERIOD);
8. SCREENING FOR THE DUMPSTER AND
9. OUTSIDE LIGHTS OFF AT 11:00 P.M .
10. SUBMISSION OF 6 PAPER MAPS SIGNED BY THE OWNER.
MOTION SECONDED BY MIKE, ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Applicant was informed that the hours of operation need to be on the map.
ARNIKA: Case # 2008-11 – Lot Line Adjustment – Swartekill Road
John Freeman, Meddenbach & Eggers, was present to represent the applicant in this matter. Roxanne explained that Arnika was before the Board on 5/22/08 for a lot line adjustment that was approved and the maps were signed. Applicant failed to file the maps within the timeframe allotted (6 months) so basically the Board needs to make a motion to re-approve the lot line adjustment and resign the maps.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO RE-APPROVE THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR ARNIKA, CASE #2008-11, AS PER SECTION 107.18.E, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
BIRCHEZ (The Birches at Esopus): Case #2008-23 – Site Plan Amendment: “As-
Built” changes to parking, fire access, drainage – 15-51 Dick Williams
Lane (aka Sorbello Lane); SBL: 56.076-2-5
No one present to represent this application before the Board.
STEWART’S #156: Case #2008-21 – Site Plan/Conditional Use Permit &
Case #2008-22 – Lot Line Adjustment; 195-199 (US Route
9W; State Hwy 310) @ East Main Street (town Hwy 910),
Port Ewen; SBL: 56.060-5-1,2 & 3
Chad Fowler present FOR Stewart’s Corp. for this application. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Review dated 12/12/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Chad informed the Board that there were four variances before the ZBA. The variance for the setback to the canopy and the setback to the gas tank were approved. The 10 ft separation from property line to blacktop to the rear of the building they did not think that applied so they are looking for an interpretation from the Building Inspector so that is tabled. The fourth variance was regarding green space. There was a lot of conversation about this. Currently as applied we have 18% green and the code is 50% and he was approved at 20%. He gave them 2% and he arrived at this by taking away parking spot #10 and the patio under the picnic tables along East Main is now grass. Roxanne stated that green space is not their authority and the Board does not understand where this variance came from. Chad stated that he ended up giving up parking space #10, the patio underneath the picnic tables and the area between the dumpster and the building. Roxanne stated that this had nothing to do with the variances requested. Chad stated it was referred to as coverage. Myles stated that this is different than green space it is the building coverage is what they are going after. Chad stated that he is 80% impervious and 20% green. Roxanne stated that Tim Keefe, Building Inspector, referred them to the ZBA for Section 123.13.H.2 which would be the setback for the canopy and the tanks. Dennis asked if they considered pavers under the picnic table since that is considered impervious pavers. Chad stated that he mentioned stamped asphalt and brick pavers. Dennis stated that stamped asphalt is not but brick pavers are because they are open grid. Chad stated that they suggested stone but he mentioned that they can not sweep it to remove cigarette butts, etc. He stated that he probably will not be able to do the picnic tables at all. Dennis stated that the pavers would make sense since you could even put it in the parking. Chad needs to check parking spot #10 which he gave up. Will he still have visibility to the river? Dennis stated that if they put pavers in spaces #1 and #10 you probably would meet the requirement and not lose the space. He stated that he would accept it as a product that allows water to drain through it.
Mike mentioned that you can not build a gas station in a hamlet with 50% coverage. This is not doable. Fred agrees and stated that half the buildings out there are more than that. Myles stated that 50% is the most generous in the Town. Most of the town has a 20%, 15%, 10% or 5% coverage and the coverage is buildings and structures. It has nothing to do with driveways or other pavement areas that are not considered “structures”. Myles is wondering what information the ZBA was given on that because this does not make any sense. Myles stated that there is no green space standard in this Town. Green space is not considered coverage so it is felt that the ZBA may be reading it incorrectly. The Board does not feel that he needs this variance and he was only referred to the ZBA for two items. Roxanne will follow up with the Building Inspector regarding the confusion.
Chad questioned the fence and stated that he is open to whatever the Board suggests. Dennis stated that the vinyl would be good. The green space in between the fence and the building goes from 5’ to 2’ and they did another version today by rotating the building and making it more parallel with East Main and he ends with a 5’ green strip just by turning the building. He is still within the setbacks and the overhang is up to the setback line so he thinks this might solve the problem. As far as added planting around the dumpster, they are open to that. The LED price sign is adjustable and there are three different levels of light intensity.
Fred questioned the drain that goes out the back as they are going to add a couple of storm drains plus the one that comes off of the street. Fred stated that it would be on the neighbor’s property and he assumes that they have permission. Chad stated that they did. It is the same approval they received when they were before us previously. Chad stated that he can submit a new letter if the Board would like. Fred mentioned the woman who was here before discussing the drainage coming down. Chad stated that they are not increasing the level. Fred stated that they have an additional storm drain going into it that was not there before. This is an existing pipe (clay tile pipe) that does not have an easement to be there. Fred feels that eventually he can see the neighbors coming back and a possible legal dispute about the right to dump the stormwater there. He asked if they could get their drainage out of that and increase the size of their underground reservoir. Chad stated that right now he is independent of that clay pipe. They are replacing the pipe tile with a new pipe. There are two pipes coming out. Fred stated he knows this but they are dumping in the same spot. Fred felt that if they left the clay pipe in place then he increases his underwater reservoir and should there be a legal action brought by one of the adjoining property owners that he will have nothing to do with it because they have not added to it, altered it, changed it or anything else. Chad stated that the condition of that is pretty rough. Chad stated that he is thinking does he want his lot torn up 10 years from now and they do not so that is why they are replacing it. Chad stated that their drainage off of the blacktop is independent of that pipe. They are not draining anything to that pipe. It comes off of Route 9W. Mike stated that what Fred is saying is if you leave the tile alone and you are not putting anything else into it then clearly if somebody brings a suit then it is a pre-existing condition. Discussion continued regarding this issue. It is up to the applicant what he decides to do regarding this issue.
Dennis reminded Chad of their discussion regarding the reason the Board was waiving the pitch roof on the canopy as that they were going to put the trim on the building and it is still not shown on the map. Chad agreed with this and will correct the map. Dennis stated from the window to the other side of the top and if they could mimick the top of the canopy trim that would tie the two together.
Mike asked if anyone brought up questions about the new entrance onto East Main and it is still difficult to make a left turn. Dennis stated that at the first review we talked about this and about making it a one way in but he thought that they said that it was alright. He feels that if you get more than one or two cars coming in you will block Main Street coming down. Mike stated that the only other option is to go up Kline Lane and turn at the light. He thinks it will improve a bad situation but he does not think that it resolves a bad situation. Roxanne stated that the first suggestion when meeting with the Highway Superintendent was to make a right on to East Main Street and then utilize Kline Lane for left hand turns but trucks can do that and Alan did not think trucks could make it out of there anyway. When they met with DOT the DOT had no issue but they recommend that the entrance be 75 ft to the highway but Chad stated that is not possible. Other than that they have no problem. Dennis stated that the trucks can do whatever they want but he feels that for normal car traffic it would make sense to keep people from making a left turn out of that lot. Roxanne stated that DOT answered by stating that they reviewed the proposed access and they recommend that the entrance be 75 ft. back from the base of the curve on Route 9W if possible but the Department has no objection for further comments on the additional access point. Roxanne stated that we were talking about restricting it to a right hand onto East Main Street and eliminate a left hand turn and force people to do a left hand turn via Kline Lane and come up to the light. Mike stated that we should let it go because it is better than trying to make a left hand turn onto Route 9W out of that parking lot so it improves that situation and people who know the area can make the right and then the left on Kline Lane and go across. Applicant was told that we still need Town Highway Superintendent to send us a letter telling us that the access is okay with him.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO REFER STEWART’S, CASE #2008-21 & 2008-22 TO CLOUGH HARBOUR ENGINEERING FOR REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Chad was informed that they are responsible to forward a revised set of prints to Pete Lilholt, Clough Harbour Associates for engineering review.
PERCIVALLE: Case #2008-15 – Major re-subdivision – 45 Hudson Lane, Ulster
Park; SBL: 64.003-5-2.32
Roxanne stated that we received confirmation from DEC Division of Environmental Permits that they received Percivalle application on 12/12/08 and it is being reviewed and we will re advised in writing regarding the Departments’ findings. Application ID #3-5122-00182/00001 and this should be used when contacting them.
Ed Pine, engineer, was present along with applicant Joseph Percivalle. Myles reviewed M.L. Putman Consulting Report dated 12/11/08, copy given to applicant and copy placed in file.
Myles will go through his files to see if he can find the form for submission of an Agricultural Data Statement. He has had phone conversations with John Petronella at DEC regarding the wetlands and they will be receiving a letter on this. In summary they have what are known as mapped wetlands that are on the official maps adopted back in the 80’s and then there are eligible wetlands which were not mapped by the State but they meet the State criteria and the State can determine that they are going to add it to the maps. In some cases it is discretionary where they do not add them to the maps and that is the case here where DEC really wants to work with the applicant. There will be some site disturbance and wetland disturbance and Joe Petronella has told Myles that DEC will have to do a Part 404 Clean Water Permit in lieu of their authority under the Federal Clean Water Act. They requested an updated FEAF and a revised set of the plans showing the current layout that is being proposed showing the current 6 lots being proposed because they have not been brought up to speed. (Planning Board needs to send a set of maps and FEAF to DEC referencing the number given.)
Ed had one question regarding the recommendation about an Archeological Study. He questioned if it was really necessary to go through a full Archeological Study for a 5 lot subdivision. Myles stated that it was SHPPO’s recommendation but it is not required. Myles stated that this is a Phase I which may very well be a literature search and very, very preliminary field work. It is based on SHPPO’s maps that say that this may be a sensitive area.
Fred questioned how many houses are there on Hudson Lane which is a dead end lane. Myles stated that there are probably 30 houses there. Myles stated that this is a good policy question how to deal with pre-existing Town roads that have already 20 houses in there on deadends and now you have more houses. Dennis stated that it is pre-existing non-conforming. He feels that we are taking the steps by asking for the road reservation so we are trying to improve it so that the next person who comes in and tries to develop the adjacent parcel we will get a way out. Myles stated that starting next year the County is going to be looking at the subdivisions and this is one of the things he thinks they will have a problem with. Roxanne stated that this will end up being referred to the County since it is within 500 ft. of a County road. Roxanne stated that at this point we do not have a full statement at this time.
MIKE MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOGNIZES THAT THIS IS A PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ISSUE WITH HUDSON LANE BUT WE ARE TRYING TO AMELIORIATE THAT BY CAUSING THE APPLICANT TO MAKE PROVISION FOR FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION TO THE SOUTH, SECONDED BY FRED. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Roxanne informed all members present that the New Calendar for 2009 was given to them. There was a correction sent out due to a mistake on the November, 2009 meeting date. Meetings will be the third Wednesday in November and December, 2009.
Members were informed that they need to submit their training credits to April as soon as possible since a yearly Training Report must be submitted to the Town Clerk. Roxanne stated that when it comes time for reappointment you can not be appointed unless you do your 4 hours of training during the year.
Roxanne asked if we are going to stay with Myles and Dan Shuster for Somerset. Myles is willing to take on Somerset at this point. We also need to decide if we are going to stay with Peter C. Graham for legal issues and Pete Lilholt, Clough Harbour for engineering.
Following some discussion the Board felt that since Myles is willing to take on Somerset and his work for this project will be billed to their Escrow Account that we should go with M. L. Putman Consulting.
Roxanne stated that for the Board members information following Peter C. Graham, Esq. bill to Somerset she had to send an e-mail to Nick Graviano letting him know that they will need to replenish their Escrow Account.
Mike stated that there is an issue that if somebody moves a lot line and this is something that pre-existed they should not be charged. Dennis stated that they would not be charged because they are not creating a new lot. Dennis further stated that the issue is when you create a new lot then you should be charged a Recreation Fee. Dennis stated that if the Board wants to change the wording to say any new lot created pays the fee. This would be one way to deal with the issue. Some Board members felt that it should say any vacant lot. Discussion continued regarding this issue. Dennis is presently working on the new fee schedule.
ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD:
Roxanne informed Planning Board Members who were not able to attend the County Planning Board Educational Meeting held on 12/9/08 regarding the New County Charter that will take effect January 1, 2009. Everyone who did not attend the meeting was given a copy of the booklet that was handed out. County Planning Board will be requiring, which they are allowed to do under the County General Municipal Law, a 12 day lead time. When we meet on the 4th Thursday of the month there is no way we can get a referral to them within the timeframe required. Myles made a suggestion that we wait and see how it works. Roxanne stated that the County is willing to work with us. She also stated that when things are sent to the County now we need to say that they are a full statement meaning that we have done the engineering review, any referrals to any Board and any consultant work needs to have been completed in order to call it a full statement. When we do our resolution to refer it to the County our resolution has to say that this is a full statement. They want SEQR determination before we send it which is something we do not do because we would get into trouble with SEQR determination and try to remember what meeting we did this at so we have been doing it at the time we grant approval and the County will not be happy with this. Myles stated that the more important issue is that they know that we have enough information to do a SEQR determination. Basically the County Planning Board is being asked to formalize that the application is complete.
Myles stated that we have the option of signing an agreement between the Town of Esopus and the Ulster County Planning Board so that there are some things that we do not need to send to them. Roxanne stated that each member was given a copy of the Section of the Administrative Code (Chapter 46 & 47, Article VII) under the Charter for the County Planning Board and the tasks that it now has. Everyone has a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Esopus and the Ulster County Planning Board and this document helps us because the checklist tells us what actually has to accompany everything. Roxanne stated that if we do not sign the agreement which exempts us from things that we would normally send them then we have to send them everything. Roxanne stated that she talked to Dennis Doyle since the meeting and this exemption means that you only send what you have to send. Any referring body needs to sign this agreement with the County and if they sign this they only have to submit per the checklist. If we do not sign it, we must send in every piece of paper that comes in.
Mike stated that the County in this new form of government has given a lot more work and a lot more responsibility to the Ulster County Planning Board and no more people and no more money. It looks to him like it is a power play that they are trying long range to obviate the Town Planning Board to say that all planning has to be done at the County level. Roxanne felt that Mike’s perception was incorrect. She stated that when the County Charter was first passed the powers of the County Planning Board were so messed up. The UCPB went before the Inter-Governmental Committee and this was re-written to match the Article 12B of the State Code. The County Charter is modeled after Orange County. A lot that was thrown at the UCPB they did not know until they received the documents. They did not have much say in what they were being told to do. The UCPB hired one additional staff member. This is a lot more work so they are requiring the 12 days because they do not know what they will get hit with. They want us to work with them and they will work with us. Roxanne feels that we need to just give them what they need. Now anything that affects a County road the stormwater plan submitted has to be sent to the County Department of Highway and Bridges as well as the copy to the UCPB.
Roxanne stated that the UCPB had the ability to hire the Director which they lost but the kept the ability to set policy which no other County Board does under the County Charter form of government. They can change this if it does not work. Should the County Executive choose not to appoint Dennis Doyle as Commissioner the UCPB gives him three names and he has to appoint one of them as Commissioner.
Discussion took place at length regarding whether the Planning Board should sign this agreement. Fred stated that he can think of no reason why he would ever want to sign this agreement. Mike and Dennis agree with Fred at this time. Mike stated that Dennis said at the meeting that we would have to send everything in and then they would send it back. This may not have been what Denis Doyle meant but this is what he said. Board members decided to take a sit and wait to see what happens stance at this time.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO NOT SIGN THE COUNTY AGREEMENT AT THIS TIME, SECONDED BY MIKE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
Roxanne………..yes (in the spirit of cooperation with the Board)
Dennis brought up the fact that the County does not respond to our request for them to fix River Road which is a County Road.
DENNIS MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY ROXANNE. ALL MEMBERS WERE IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:26 PM.
NEXT MONTHLY MEETING: January 22, 2009
Second Meeting (if needed) January 14, 2009
NEXT PRE-SIBMISSION: January 8, 2009