VILLAGE OF NEW PALTZ PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP and REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. Members Present: Raymond Curran, Chair; Terence Ward, Linda Welles Members Absent: Marion DuBois Also present: Denis McGee, Paula McGee, Patricia Brook, Heidi Jewett, Georgina Tufano, Dino Toscani, Steve Axelson, Rick Bunt, David Rider, David Clouser, Kathy Moniz, Village Building Inspector, Michael Zierler, Village Trustee and other members of the public. Announcements from the Chair: The Chair reviewed the order of tonight s agenda, including the postponement of Side South Associates (per the applicant s request) and discussion of the Crossroads project. There will also be a brief update by the building inspector on the status of a previously approved application. New Applications: PB08-124: Dennis & Paula McGee. 40 Plains Road [SBL: 86.041-1-25.1 (R-2)] Subdivision Sketch Plan: to subdivide a 5.77 acre parcel into two building lots, one of 2.17 acres with an existing 2-family dwelling and one of 3.6 acres to be improved with a residential dwelling. Applicant Present: Denis McGee; Patricia Brook, Land Surveyor Ms. Brook reviewed the scope of the two-lot subdivision separating the 5.77 acre parcel into the following two lots: (1) 2.17 acres with the existing dwelling and (2) a new building lot of 3.6 acres. In order to construct a dwelling unit on the second lot, a former landfill site closed in 1961, approval from both the DEC and the Ulster County Health Department are required before this submission is considered complete and the Planning Board can move forward on the application. The applicant said the property had been under DEC review for the past two years and presented a letter dated August 18, 2008 stating that DEC was satisfied in the responses provided for items 1-7 in the Department s July 13, 2007 letter and approved the waste relocation activities proposed and shown in the March 26, 2008 plans and narrative regarding this subdivison. DEC noted that condition #8 required the approval of the Ulster County Department of Health (UCDH), emphasizing the serious potential risks of landfill gas migration and ground water contamination for any structures constructed on or near a landfill. Ms. Brook also said the applicant s engineer worked with the County Health Department on the proposed septic for lot #2 and explained that UCDH requires an approval letter from DEC prior to their final sign-off. The DEC letter has been forwarded to the UCHD and the applicant expects approval from the Health Department in the next 2-3 weeks. Regarding DEC s concerns, the applicant said they were constructing the house for themselves and following DEC requirements. Because the building requires special construction (e.g. venting), the Board requested copies of the construction narrative, photos of the test holes, and copies of DEC s July 13, 2007 letter detailing their concerns. The Chair also asked the applicant to forward the plans for the septic tank directly to Mr. Clouser, the Board s engineer, for review. The applicant will provide the Board and Mr. Clouser with the requested information and a public hearing will be scheduled for a final plat when an approval letter is received from the Health Department.
PB08-125: Jewett Family Farm. Heidi Jewett. 181 Huguenot Street [SBL: 78.82-1-3 & 86.25.1-1-16.1 (H)] Subdivision Sketch Plan: to subdivide a 104.98 acre parcel into 2 lots as follows: Lot 1 @ 10 acres includes an existing residential dwelling and associated buildings; lot 2 includes access and road frontage in the Village with the remaining @80 acres located in the town of New Paltz Applicant Present: Heidi Jewett; Patricia Brooks, Land Surveyor Ms. Brook explained the two lot subdivision of the Jewett farm as follows: lot 1, @10 acres primarily in the Village of New Paltz historic district includes the existing residential dwelling and associated buildings; lot 2, has access and road frontage in the Village of New Paltz with the remaining @ 80 acres in the Town of New Paltz (including the addition of a single family house) will continue to be encumbered by an agricultural conservation easement granted to the Wallkill Valley Land Trust and Open Space Conservancy and be used for organic agricultural farming. The applicant said they have a letter from the Wallkill Valley Land Trust and the Open Space Conservancy approving the changes/addendum to the conservation easement document resulting from the subdivision. Mr. Ward asked for a copy of the addendum. As the addendum is currently being written, the applicant will provide a copy of the existing easement and the letter showing approval of the plan. She noted that the original agreement called for no further building sites or improvements on the Jewett farm. A lot line revision with the Huguenot Historical Society (HHS) is also proposed. This would revise the existing boundary line to conform to the actual activities and possession lines recognized as farm fields used by Jewett and the nature trails/harcourt Sanctuary used by the HHS. All property in the Village (the majority of lot 1 and the access to lot 2) complies with the 100 lot frontage/width requirement. Procedural Steps in the Town and Village. The applicant noted that approval from both the Town and Village planning boards are required before the application can be filed with the county clerk and is looking to coordinate and streamline the process. 1. The Town planning board had reviewed the application and referred it to the town ZBA for an area variance regarding lot frontage and lot width. That variance request is before the town ZBA this month. 2. The Town planning board has circulated a notice of intent to be lead agency for this application (oversee the SEQR process). The Village planning board just received the document today. Recipients have 30 days to respond. 3. After being designated lead agency, the Town planning board would hold a public hearing on the application. The Village planning board could submit any concerns or request specific issues to be addressed issues during the town s SEQR review process either by (1) written comment to the town planning board and/or (2) attendance at the public hearing. 4. After the public hearing, the Town s planning board would make a SEQR determination. 5. The applicant would like the Village Planning Board to hold its public hearing (for a final plat) regarding property in the Village as soon as possible after the Town s public hearing. Before the Village planning board could hold the hearing, the applicant said the Town planning board would have to issue, at the very least, a preliminary approval. The applicant would then return to the Town planning board for their approval of the final plat. New Application with Public Hearing: PB08-126: Courtside Inc. 184 Main Street. [SBL: 86.34-11-6 (B-1)] Special Use Permit: Convert retail store to a commercial bank. Applicant Present: Georgina Tufano, Dino Toscani The applicant described the change in use from the existing retail business to the proposed financial institution noting there would be only one drive-through window and no drive through ATM. The applicant plans to purchase the property and rent it to the Teachers Credit Union. There would be no 2
change to the existing footprint or to the external building itself except for cosmetic improvements (painting) and landscaping. The property, which was once used as a fast food restaurant, includes an existing drive-through and curb cut onto Main Street; it requires no additional permits from the Department of Transportation. The building inspector verified that the applicant has sufficient on site parking. Public Hearing and Discussion: Ms. Welles made a motion to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ward and passed unanimously by the Board. The vote was as follows: R. Curran aye; T. Ward aye, L. Welles aye. Mr. Zierler expressed concern about (1) potential increase in traffic in the on-site parking area and (2) the sight line for making a left turn. Steve Axelson, the current owner of the property, recounted the history of the parcel noting its original use as a fast food restaurant (Jack-in-the Box). He explained there were two curb cuts: one wide driveway accommodating both ingress and egress and a second driveway/curb cut for egress only from the drive-through. The latter had no restrictions for turning right or left. The applicant will remove an existing landscaping wall to improve the sight line from the driveway. Mr. Axelson strongly recommended against connecting the property to the Convenient Deli parking lot. The applicant had no intention of pursuing such a connection. A motion was made by Ms. Welles to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ward and passed unanimously by the Board. The vote was as follows: R. Curran aye; T. Ward aye, L. Welles aye. The Board felt there would be no significant environmental impact or change in the community character from the proposed use and believed there would less traffic impact on Main Street from a bank than from an eatery. Ms. Welles moved to approve the application with no conditions. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously as follows: R. Curran aye; T. Ward aye; L. Welles aye. Pending Application: PB07-96: Frederick (Rick) Bunt. 56 Church Street. [SBL: 86.34-5-21 (R-3)] Site Plan: Construction of a triplex, three bedrooms per apartment; with 12 off-street parking spaces. Applicant Present: Rick Bunt, David Rider (?), Engineer Planning Board Consultant: David Clouser, Clouser & Associates The public hearing was opened and closed last month and the Board received several emails within the 10 day period following the close of the public hearing. The Chair summarized the concerns and outstanding issues from the August 19 th meeting focusing on potential increased water flow from this property onto Church Street and Briarwood Court, thereby exacerbating existing drainage problems for the neighbors. In response to comments at last month s public hearing, the Chair met with Mr. Clouser, the applicant and his engineers to clarify and confirm any legal implications for using the catch basin at Briarwood Court and (2) the amount of any potential additional run-off/spillage onto Church Street. The Chair summarized the results as follows: Expansion of Driveway Width. Neighboring property others were concerned about additional water spillage from the increased driveway width. The applicant agreed to retain the 12 existing driveway and not increase it by 4 as requested by the ZBA This has been reflected on the revised site plan submitted to the Board two weeks ago with a notation that the curb cut will be increased by 2. Water Flow on Church Street: Mr. Clouser confirmed it is legal for water to flow from one property to another as long as that flow does not increase the existing drainage on the property. He said it was standard procedure, in many communities, to require no net increase in runoff after the development is completed and noted that the Village Code [212-23(D)] requires runoff detention be provided on the property where new development is planned. 3
The stormwater management system on this property will retain water on the site by using rain gardens to collect the runoff generated by the roof and pavement into the detention system so the new flow rate released will be no greater that the existing rate. Mr. Clouser said this particular system would actually reduce the current flow of water on the adjacent property. (Tests were conducted to confirmed sufficient soil depth to accommodate the drainage system.) Ms. Welles suggested a maintenance schedule be required for the rain gardens as part of routine property maintenance. The building inspector suggested the drainage inspection coincide with the annual fire inspection date. There was a brief discussion regarding proposed time limits for remedying any corrections. Connection to Briarwood Catch Basin. Last month, a number of residents at Briarwood questioned whether the applicant required an easement to have water flow to the catch basin on the adjoining property at Briarwood Court. Mr. Clouser said an easement would be required only if there was an increase in drainage flow. Since this is not the case, no easement is required. Crown on Church Street: Pointing out that there is no curb opposite the driveway at 56 Church Street, residents had expressed concern about drainage overflow and asked about the crowning on the street. Mr. Clouser confirmed a crown on the street to the south. Across the street from the driveway the street flattens and causes water to tip around the corner towards 32. There are 2 inlets on the corner with a little bit of curb by those inlets but no curb across the street. Therefore, in very heavy rains, there would be a chance that water could spill over the drive and flow across the street onto adjoining properties. Although there is a slope coming from the south, Mr. Clouser believed that most of the drainage comes down the street since the slope continues for more than a block. He said the situation is made more difficult because of a sidewalk situated below gutter level. Remedying the problem would require more than a higher curb due to other street conditions. In summary, Mr. Clouser concluded that this project will not increase water flow onto Church Street or Briarwood Court. Noting that there are many drainage issues in this area, the Chair concluded those problems do not appear to be caused by or exacerbated by this project. In addition, the parking area is pervious and drains directly into the rain garden. Mr. Clouser said there is enough safety in the drainage plan that even if the area was paved, there would be no significant increase in the drainage. The applicant confirmed that he will not be paving this area. Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the site plan, with the following two conditions: 1. An annual maintenance schedule for the rain garden must conform to the annual fire inspection and any required corrections must be made within a time frame designated at the discretion of the code enforcement officer. 2. No blasting is permitted. Mr. Ward said the applicant did a good job conforming to current codes requirements and addressing all the concerns raised by the public. He personally regretted the application was not included in the proposed moratorium for the R-3 district and noted that decision was not under the purvue of the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Ms. Welles and approved unanimously by the Board. The vote was as follows: R. Curran - aye; T. Ward aye; L. Welles aye. Other Business: 10 South Oakwood Terrace PB05-40: Special Use Permit: To establish a house of worship and related residence; construction of PB07-01 Site Plan: to construct an addition on the rear of the existing building. The building inspector briefly reviewed the history of above referenced applications for a special use permit and site plan for a Chabad House, which included the addition of an event room to accommodate variety of religious functions. The applications were approved on February 14, 2006 and March 13, 2007 respectively. 4
Ms. Moniz said although the applicant had satisfied all building code issues required for a single family residence to receive a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), there were two site plan conditions that had not been fulfilled and therefore the applicants could not legally occupy or use the new addition. Condition #3 of the site plan requires landscaping, as specified in the plan presented to the Board on January 31, 2007, and a solid 6 H fence along the east side of the property. Noting that the garage had recently been taken down, Ms. Moniz also referenced condition 6b of the Special Use Permit requiring the applicant to return to the Board at such time to address buffering the east side of the property from noise and light. Since the time of the approval(s), there is a new owner of the adjacent property, who, unlike the previous owner, has an excellent relationship with the applicant. The applicant and the new neighbor both prefer to have their yards accessible to each other (their children play together) and do not want a 6 H fence erected between their properties. Ms. Moniz is planning to issue a conditional/time limited CO to allow the applicant to hold religious services for the Jewish Holidays at the end of this month. She confirmed that the addition was safe and fully complied with the building code and explained that the conditional CO would be contingent upon Planning Board review of any proposed changes to the original approval. The applicant will come before the Board next month requesting the requirement for the 6 H fence be amended/removed. Ms. Moniz noted that Mr. Wegener, a landscape consultant, had visited the site today and will assist the applicant with the plantings required by the site plan. Ms. Welles initially objected to granting the applicant additional time to comply with the conditions of an approval issued months ago but acknowledged the extenuating/adverse conditions at the time of the approval and the impact of pending religious holidays. The Board agreed to endorse this strategy. Crossroads Project: The discussion of the proposed Crossroads development in the Town of New Paltz was postponed. The 3 rd public hearing, held on September 8, 2008 was adjourned to an unspecified to allow the Town Board to begin their public hearing regarding the PUD legislation. Since the project will be undergoing additional review by consultants and possibly revisions, the Chair felt a statement from the Village Planning Board would have more impact in response to additional information and/or proposed changes to the scope and/or site plan. Board members also discussed the DEIS procedure regarding completeness, extent of informational content and public hearings. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Mr. Ward to approve the minutes of July 8, 2008. The motion was seconded by Ms. Welles and carried unanimously by the Board. The vote was as follows: R. Curran - aye; T. Ward aye; L. Welles aye. Adjournment: Mr. Wards moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 pm; Mr. Welles seconded the motion, and all voted in favor. The vote was as follows: R. Curran - aye; T. Ward aye; L. Welles aye. Respectfully submitted, Alison Shestakofsky Secretary to Village Planning Board Copies to Trustee Michael Zierler David Clouser, Engineer PB2008_0909_ letter.doc Drayton Grant, Attorney; Bob Chamberlin, Traffic Engineer Ted Fink, Planner 5