Beacon City Planning Board

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. A workshop took place at 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting commenced at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Hibbs, Member Sablinski, Alternate Members John Gunn and Anne Rapalje, Building Inspector Tim Dexter, City Engineer Art Tully and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Members Jay Sheers, Vince Arquilla, Randall Williams, Spring Attaway and Tony Lassiter were absent. City Planner David Stolman did not arrive at the meeting due to inclement weather.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the December 14, 2004 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. A motion was made by Mr. Sablinski, seconded by Mr. Gunn to approve the minutes as circulated. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2

LOTS, SUBMITTED BY DAVID DE LEO (PROPERTY OWNED BY ARTHUR

& MARYLOU VOLBERT), 40 RUSSELL AVENUE

Mr. Hibbs read the notice of public hearing printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal on January 5, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for a two lot subdivision of property, owned by Arthur and MaryLou Volbert, located at 40 Russell Avenue, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 6054, Block 46, Lot 241600.

Mitch Berkey of Povall Engineering described changes made to the subdivision plan based on comments presented at the December 2004 meeting. He explained only a small driveway turnaround area was added in an effort to limit pavement in the front yard. A sight distance study was done and notations were added to the map. Mr. Berkey observed only a small amount of traffic activity on the street during the peak hours of the morning. Considering the low volume of street traffic and adequate sight distance, he felt the very small turnaround area may not be needed because in reality vehicles may still back out into the street.

Mr. Tully explained a practical and effective turnaround area must be provided. The turnaround should be bigger because ultimately they do not want to create a situation where vehicles are backing into a City street. Mr. Tully asked if water service was provided to the existing garage. Mr. Berkey said there is water service line but he was unsure its age or condition. He explained they will contact the Water/Sewer Superintendent to see what exists on the property and to determine what must be done.

John O’Dell, 55 Prospect Street, asked if the utilities would be run in from Prospect Street because his house is only served with a 1.5-inch water line. He expressed concerns that his water pressure will be adversely affected by this house in addition to the new house across the street that is currently under construction. Mr. O’Dell asked if the City plans to install or upgrade the water and sewer lines to accommodate the additional burden because he doesn’t have good pressure now. Mr. Berkey advised that he would

discuss the issue with the Water/Sewer Superintendent. Mr. Tully assured him discussions would take place with City officials if it is determined upgrades are necessary. Mr. O’Dell reiterated his concern that the old utilities will not adequately serve two new houses.

Ralph Basso, 25 First Street, pointed out that the adjoining property owner is listed as “Thorn” and must be changed to “O’Dell”. He questioned the size of the sewer line and noted the O’Dell’s home is the only one served by it. Mr. Basso reported the clean-out located down the road gets clogged once a month now and may need replacing. With regard to the water service, Mr. Basso informed the Board that the old garage had water piped in from a small line off Russell Avenue. He asked if the installation of gas, water and sewer lines for the two new homes would be done at the same time. Mr. Hibbs explained they are two separate projects and work scheduling cannot be controlled by the Planning Board.

Barbara O’Dell, 55 Prospect Street, expressed frustration that the street would be disturbed for many months due to a lack of coordination. She asked why they were not informed of the new house under construction across the street. Mr. Hibbs explained that it is located on an existing lot and was not an application before the Planning Board. Ms. O’Dell noted the Volbert’s property was once two separate lots. Mr. Hibbs explained the lots must have been subsequently combined. Ms. O’Dell questioned zoning requirements for the property. Mr. Dexter explained the property is located in an R1-5 zoning district which requires a minimum lot size of 50 ft. x 100 ft. Mr. Berkey reported the new exceeds minimum requirements and is 60 ft. x 125 ft. Ms. O’Dell expressed concern that the new homes will be narrow and accidents will occur if they back out of their driveways at same time. Years ago she was told any new lot had to be 75 ft. x 100 ft. and was never informed or notified of any zoning changes. Mr. Hibbs explained that although the Planning Board reviews proposed zoning changes, it is a City Council process.

Mr. Basso reported he has lived in his home for 57 years and he has never been notified of a zoning change. Mr. Hibbs reaffirmed that current zoning requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. and this application meets or exceeds those requirements.

Ms. O’Dell asked if they would be provided an opportunity to review the type of house that will be built. Mr. Hibbs explained the Planning Board reviews all new construction for colors, elevations and architectural compliance with the character of the neighborhood. He explained a review is conducted in order to determine that new construction will not be too similar or not too dissimilar from other houses in the area. Ms. O’Dell asked if the applicant (contract vendee) intended to reside in the house. Mr. Hibbs said the Board would only know that information if offered, and explained the Planning Board reviews a project for compliance to City regulations with regard to issues of zoning, traffic safety, drainage, utilities, etc. In response to Ms. O’Dell’s question regarding landscaping requirements, Mr. Hibbs explained they make provisions in certain situations, such as large developments and when trying to separate commercial uses from residential areas. In the “Gateway to Mt. Beacon” trail head project, Scenic Hudson was required to provide screening along the back yards of Hillside Road residents to adequately divide the incompatible uses. This situation would not require a buffer since it is residential and residential. Ms. O’Dell criticized the City for not buffering her property from Green Street Park when it was developed.

Norma Ettinger, 12 First Street, agreed with requiring a turn around area so cars don’t back out into the street. She reported a great deal of traffic feeds onto her street from Prospect Street. Ms. Ettinger asked if the home would become a multi-family use. Mr. Hibbs explained that it would not because the property is located in a single family zone.

Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street, asked how much of the neighborhood area is considered in the architectural review process. Mr. Hibbs explained the general area that is affected by the house and in the immediate area. Mr. Pavelock made note that the contractor for the house across the street wanted to blast at 6:00 a.m. one day.

Roy Schiller, 17 First Street, expressed concern for additional drainage onto his property that may result from the impervious areas created with the construction of this house and the one under construction across the street. He explained the rear of his property is lower than either. Mr. Berkey explained they channeled away from the new house and drainage should not change from what it is now. Mr. Tully explained the topography shown on the plan shows drainage from the new lot will be directed toward Russell Avenue and away from First Street. He said discussion will take place with the Building Inspector during review of the construction plan to determine how drainage from the roof and footing drains will be handled. Mr. Tully explained he requested the applicant to show drainage information beyond the proposed house to be sure surrounding properties are not affected. Mr. Schiller asked what trees would be removed for construction. Mr. Berkey explained the large Maple in the rear will not be taken down. Mr. Tully requested a note indicating the Maple tree will not removed and will be a condition of a building permit application. Mr. Berkey said the smaller Cedars in the front will be cleared. Mr. Schiller expressed concern that the low shrubs and hedge on the side which provides privacy will be removed. Mr. Basso explained the hedge row is on his property and will not be removed. The smaller growth beyond that is of no value and will be cleaned up.

Mr. Basso complained that storm water runs across the street, onto his sidewalk and although he has complained to the City they have not done anything. He wanted assurance that the condition will not worsen as a result of this construction.

Mr. Tully advised the applicant to look into and provide more information on water, sewer and site drainage issues discussed. Review will continue at the next meeting.

There were no further comments and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 2 REVIEW FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR SPECIAL

USE PERMIT, 149 MAIN STREET (SUP ISSUED BY CITY COUNCIL ON

AUGUST 16, 2004), PROPERTY OWNED BY ON THE SQUARE

APARTMENTS, INC. (RONALD PICCONE)

Aryeh Siegal and owner Jamie Piccone were present to continue site plan review for the project at 149 Main Street. Mr. Siegal explained the City Council issued a Special Use Permit for six apartments and ground level storefront on the condition they return to the Planning Board for final site plan approval. No additional parking is required because the proposed use is less than 25% greater in intensity than the 1964 use. A total of 15 parking spaces were shown on the plan with rear access from Commerce Street. Mr. Tully explained a formal Site Plan that includes topography, survey information, parking, lighting and drainage is required for approval. The property line appears to go down the center of an existing parking lot which is shared with the property to the west and access may be prohibited by a gate near proposed parking. Mr. Tully was unsure of how each property relates legally, and advised any legal connection, easement and/or right-of-way must be reflected on the site plan. He was not sure if Mr. Stolman reviewed the building use or floor plan because their site visit focused on the property layout’s viability. Mr. Hibbs reported Mr. Stolman will fax his comments directly to the applicant without delay. Mr. Tully explained he needs more information on engineering issues, i.e. parking, grading, etc. Initially, the status of how each property relates to each other is required. Mr. Piccone reported he owns both parcels. Planning Board files will be reviewed to see if a Site Plan for the building at 143-145 Main Street exists. Mr. Tully advised the applicant to create cross easements or agreements for access over each parcel and make them part of the plan.

Mr. Dexter explained a note refers to a 6 ft. high stockade fence and asked that the location of the fence be clearly marked on the plan. Mr. Piccone explained the fence would be located along Commerce Street. Mr. Dexter requested details for the fence; and if the lot is to be paved, parking spaces must be delineated and shown on the plan. Mr. Tully made note that the parking area appears to be somewhat bowl-shaped and recommended some type of drainage be incorporated. Mr. Piccone was aware of the condition and explained they are currently working on engineering a solution. He explained the area is lower than the storm drain located on Commerce Street. Mr. Piccone pointed out a storm drain located in the parking area is not functional and it is unclear where it connects. He is looking into some type of pump system, however Mr. Tully advised him that they are expensive and somewhat difficult to maintain. He suggested it might be more economical to lower storm drainage in Commerce Street.

ITEM NO. 3 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, DAY

CARE FACILITY, 1064 WOLCOTT AVENUE (ROSE HILL MANOR DAY

SCHOOL), PROPERTY OWNED BY MARK DEFABIO

Owner Mark DeFabio and Engineer Charles Brown of Taconic Design Consultants introduced the proposal for an additional day care building on the existing Rose Hill Manor Day School property. Mr. Brown explained the new building would be 4,300 s.f. in size and consist of five rooms to provide day care services. The new

building requires 15 parking spaces and 16 spaces have been provided. A Special Use Permit is needed from the City Council and a variance may be required to permit two main buildings on one parcel.

Mr. Dexter reported there is no need for a variance based on Section 223.12(A) of the City’s zoning code which reads, “Lot for every building. Every building hereafter erected shall be located on a lot as herein defined, and, except as herein provided, there shall be not more than one main building and its accessory buildings on one lot, except for multi-family or non-residential buildings in districts where such uses are permitted.” Mr. Dexter explained this is a permitted use in that zoning district and the building is non-residential thus allowing two buildings on one parcel. He spoke to Mr. Stolman who had a potential issue in that two buildings could potentially become residential without adequate lot area. Mr. Dexter said his conversation was brief therefore was unsure of Mr. Stolman’s exact concerns. Mr. Tully said City zoning lists a definition of “nursery school” rather than “day care center” although they are essentially one in the same. Both terms are used throughout the application form. Mr. DeFabio explained “nursery school” is an older term used when a child was dropped off while a parent went shopping or ran errands. Mr. Tully said the terms “nursery school” and “day care center” should be clarified. Mr. Dexter explained the City’s definition of “nursery school” refers to the definition of “nursery day” which is defined as “a place, building or structure designed to provide care or instruction for two or more children that are under six years of age operating on a regular basis. He said Mr. DeFabio runs an after school program which should also be considered and discussed as part of the application. The City’s definition is of 1970’s vintage and may need to be modified to include day care or after school programs as there are many that operate in Beacon today. Most facilities have after school programs that care for children older than the age of six. Mr. DeFabio reported they have an after school program but it is not extensive; other centers offer more flexibility in terms of age which is what they are trying to achieve. He explained they are also targeting the 1-3 year old age group because they only have a small space for that age now. Mr. DeFabio explained families are forced to go elsewhere and it is a struggle to get them back to the program at an older age.

Mr. Dexter explained the City Council needs to modify the definition however it could take four to six months to go through that process. He advised Mr. DeFabio that he seek approval for the nursery school and not include the after school program at this time. Mr. Tully felt he would not need to return to the Planning Board because a day care center can be approved under the definition as presently described; once the definition is amended, the use can be expanded under the new definition.

Mr. Dexter said the site plan must show finished floor elevations which are needed to determine handicap accessibility as required by the building code. Information regarding grading, drainage and utilities must also be included on the plan. Mr. DeFabio explained they are seeking an easement to obtain utilities from the cul de sac at the rear of the property. Mr. Dexter advised them that the

building will need to be supplied with a fire sprinkler system. A Certificate of Appropriateness will be required because the property is located the Historical Overlay District.

There was no further business to discuss and the meeting was adjourned on a motion made by Ms. Rapalje, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.