Beacon City Planning Board

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, February 8, 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 Jay Hibbs; Members Ed Sablinski, Spring Attaway and Jay Sheers; Alternate Member Anne Rapalje; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; City Engineer Art Tully and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Members Vince Arquilla, Randall Williams, Tony Lassiter and Alternate Member John Gunn were absent.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the January 11, 2005 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. A motion was made by Ms. Attaway, seconded by Mr. Sheers to approve the minutes as circulated. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR

SUBDIVISION, 2 LOTS, SUBMITTED BY ANTONY TSENG, RENDE DRIVE/

WOLCOTT AVENUE

Mr. Hibbs reported the public hearing notice was printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal on February 2, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for a two lot subdivision of property, owned by Antony Tseng, located at Rende Drive/Wolcott Avenue, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 6054, Block 13, Lot 182489.

Dennis Walden explained this is a continuance of the public hearing that was adjourned in March 2004. Information relative to achieving appropriate sight distance on Wolcott Avenue was provided in a memorandum from Frederick P. Clark Associates. Details on the sidewalk, curbing and retaining walls were included on the plan as requested.

Mr. Stolman explained Donald Tome, a senior associate of Frederick P. Clark Associates who specializes in transportation, studied sight line measurements from the property. His measurements determined that the Stopping Sight Distance requirements will be met and two of the three Intersection Sight Distance requirements will be met. The exception is the left turn movement from the proposed driveway to the west which is slightly obstructed by a shrub located on the adjacent neighbor’s property. Mr. Stolman advised that although the standards are met, sight distance could be improved by moving the shrub. Therefore he suggested the applicant make contact with the neighbor to discuss possibly removing the shrub. Mr. Stolman requested the note on Sheet 3 regarding sight distance referring to his firm be removed completely since Frederick P. Clark Associates is not part of the design team.

Ms. Attaway asked if actual sight distance measurements should have been included in the memorandum from F.P. Clark Associates. Mr. Stolman said those measurements could be provided for the file.

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Sablinski made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Sablinski made a motion to issue a negative SEQR declaration for the proposed two lot subdivision, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. On roll call, Mr. Sablinski, Ms. Rapalje, Ms. Attaway and Mr. Hibbs voted in favor. Mr. Sheers voted against the motion because he felt the proposed driveway would negatively impact traffic on Wolcott Avenue. Motion carried 4-1.

Discussion took place regarding removal of the shrub located on the neighboring property, specifically whether Mr. Tseng should contact the neighboring property owner about the shrub, or if the shrub would be removed as part of the Route 9D reconstruction project. After some deliberation, Ms. Attaway made a motion, seconded by Mr. Sablinski, to grant preliminary subdivision approval subject to the following: (1) removal of the note on Sheet 3 regarding sight distance that refers to F. P. Clark Associates, and (2) verification that Mr. Tseng either contacted the neighbor regarding removal of the shrub or confirmation that it will be removed as part of the Route 9D reconstruction project; waive the final public hearing based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same; and grant final approval for the two lot subdivision subject to the same conditions as preliminary approval. On roll call Mr. Sablinski, Ms. Rapalje, Ms. Attaway and Mr. Hibbs voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Sheers voted against the motion. Motion carried 4-1.

ITEM NO. 2 CONTINUE REVIEW ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,

2 LOTS, SUBMITTED BY ARNOLD RESTIVO, RALPH STREET

Owner Arnold Restivo presented new information for his proposed two lot subdivision along Ralph Street based on previous engineering comments.

Mr. Stolman provided a brief history on the project. In August of 2004, the applicant was advised to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation on a lot width variance granted for the project. The Board’s interpretation was that the variance granted for lot width did not depend on the driveway configuration, layout, or house size therefore the Planning Board will determine the layout. Mr. Stolman advised that both the variance and interpretation must be noted on the plan. Secondly, the driveway layout is essentially the same as presented in September 2004 and is difficult to understand. Mr. Restivo explained the two driveways are side by side with continuous macadam and a turn-around area. The chain link fence shown on the plat is to be removed. Mr. Stolman explained the drawings must clearly show the extent of the driveway – the first and second pages of the plan are not consistent with each other. He asked for clarification of the easement areas and a turning template to prove the turn-around area is adequately sized.

Mr. Tully concurred that the two drawings are not consistent. The second sheet of the submission is not to scale, neither a title block or reference name is listed, and there is no engineering name provided. He observed an obvious lack of coordination between the surveyor’s plan and engineering plan, and overall information is not clearly shown. Topography information was not submitted as requested and existing shrubs and fencing along the property are not shown. Mr. Tully reported a site visit revealed sight distance from the proposed driveway may be inadequate due to the shrubs. Mr. Restivo reported the shrubs will be removed. Mr. Tully said that must be indicated on the plan. Additionally, grading for the new lot shows drainage leads toward the existing house with no plans as to how it will be addressed. Mr. Stolman asked that sight distances be shown on the plan and Mr. Restivo countered that the sight distances shown consider removal of the fence and shrubs. Mr. Tully explained the sight distance calculations must be checked for compliance to determine if they meet requirements as determined by the type of road surface and speed of travel. He thought the 126 ft. distance listed seemed short therefore asked for a design professional to satisfactorily confirm those requirements.

Mr. Restivo asked if drawings could be submitted before the meeting to see if minimum requirements have been met prior to presentation. Mr. Stolman advised him to submit drawings and a pre-agenda meeting will be held before the regular meeting to review submissions. Mr. Restivo voiced concern that he hired individuals who don’t know what they are doing considering he has been before the Board several times. Mr. Tully explained these particular professionals have appeared before the Board and have successfully gotten applications approved in a timely manner. He feels information between them needs to be better coordinated. Mr. Tully advised him that a major concern is achieving adequate sight distance. Mr. Hibbs recommended Mr. Restivo designate one of the professionals to act as the lead to be sure information is coordinated on the plan. Mr. Stolman suggested sending Donald Tome review the sight distance to see if it is measured correctly.

Miscellaneous Business

Mr. Stolman suggested a change in the way meetings are handled with regard to workshop and meeting times. The agenda currently sets aside 7:00 to 7:30 p.m. for workshop discussion, however commonly one of two things occur: (1) members are not in attendance at 7:00 and (2) discussions typically don’t last 30 minutes. Therefore, he suggested holding the workshop at 7:00 with the meeting to begin immediately after that discussion has ended. Mr. Sablinski expressed concern that the meeting would begin without an exact time. The City Attorney advised members that workshops are open to public therefore the regular meeting could begin immediately following. Agendas would be worded, “The regular meeting of the Planning Board will be held at 7:00 p.m.” and the first item of business will always be “Workshop Discussion”.

There was no further business to discuss and the meeting was adjourned on a motion made by Ms. Attaway, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.