Beacon City Planning Board

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, May 10, 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, Jay Sheers; Alternate Members Anne Rapalje and John Gunn; Building Inspector Tim Dexter and Deputy Building Inspector David Buckley; City Engineer Art Tully, City Planner David Stolman and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Members Vince Arquilla, Randall Williams, Tony Lassiter and Spring Attaway were absent.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the April 12, 2005 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. A motion was made by Mr. Sablinski, seconded by Mr. Sheers to approve the minutes as circulated. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATIONS TO

EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT, A CHANGE FROM SENIOR CITIZEN

APARTMENTS TO CONVENTIONAL MULTI-UNIT APARTMENTS,

SUBMITTED BY PETER GROENDAHL, THE HAVEN, TIORONDA AVENUE.

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice as printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal on

May 4, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application to amend the Special Use

Permit issued for “senior housing apartments” to a standard/conventional apartment setting, project is known as “The Haven at Beacon Mills”, submitted by Advantage Capital Partners, Inc., located on Tioronda Avenue, identified on City tax maps as Section 5954, Block 16, Lot 951357.

Mark Day and Mike McCormack attended the meeting to describe proposed changes. Mark Day explained the project initially presented as a senior assisted living facility was thereafter changed to senior apartments and is now proposed to be a conventional upscale apartment project. The total room count was slightly reduced and an alternate building elevation with gables is now proposed. An amended Environmental Assessment Form was submitted and the applicant is awaiting updated information from the City Assessor and school officials. Mike McCormack explained the Site Plan has not really changed because the landscaping, parking and building size remain the same; only a few interior modifications will be made. The three conditions that remained outstanding have been resolved: The Metro North crossing is well on its way to approval and a letter from them will be submitted; landscaping has been brought up to the level of the initial application; and easements needed for emergency access have been secured.

Mr. Stolman reviewed the EAF and offered the following comments. The project previously approved for the site was 126 units of senior housing comprising of 81 one-bedroom and 45 two-bedroom units. The new proposal for 122 non-age-restricted multi-family units are comprised of 26 one-bedroom, 82 two-bedroom, 11 studio and 3 two-bedroom w/home office units. He pointed out that the balance shifted from mostly one-bedroom to two-bedroom units therefore new parking calculations based on the number of bedrooms is needed. Those calculations must be completed and added to the drawing.

The EAF estimates 40 school-age children will reside in the proposed residential development, however a respected source for generating that number was not provided. Mr. Stolman advised the applicant to provide the source of information and factors used for the estimate. When a reliable estimate has been secured, the potential impact on school district enrollment and property taxes must be addressed.

Mr. Stolman said the EAF should provide much greater detail with respect to the factors used in estimating trip generation, including information on how it was determined that local roads are adequately sized. Consideration must be given to the additional traffic that will result from the proposal, particularly in the context of a single regular access from Tioronda Avenue, emergency access, and the at-grade railroad crossing. School bus service access in and out of the site, as well as a location where school children will be picked up must be provided in the EAF. An appropriately sized and suitably located recreation area for families and children should be incorporated into the plan. A table that quantitatively compares the previous and proposed project, with respect to each area of impact must be provided. Modified floor plans are needed to verify bedroom count and parking requirements. Mr. Stolman explained the drawings need to be revised and include information regarding proposed number of dwelling units, new parking calculations, etc.

Mr. Tully recommended that a chart depicting the previously accepted and current needs for water, sewer, parking, traffic trip generation, etc. be provided for review. Considering the change in occupancy, he advised the applicant to make sure Metro North is aware and approves of the change with written documentation.

Mr. Sablinski expressed concern for children’s safety considering the project’s proximity to Fishkill Creek. Additionally, he questioned how a school bus would turn around considering the width of Tioronda Avenue.

Fred Antalek, 75 Knevels Avenue and City Councilmember, expressed frustration that what is happening with this application is far too familiar in Beacon. People purchase property, go through a lengthy approval process and at the 11^th hour, the project changes entirely. Only a sketch of the proposal is provided for a public hearing and a better site plan and explanation should be presented. He had several questions for the applicant. He asked what type of clientele will occupy the apartments – Section 8, children, cats, dogs, vehicles, etc. These factors change completely with the change from senior housing apartments.

Mr. Groendahl explained the apartments are designed for empty-nesters who want to rent high end apartments. The building has an elevator and is not particularly designed for children. Although there are no limits as to who can or cannot occupy the building, there will never be Section 8 due to rental costs. Mr. Groendahl explained his bank requested this change because the area will soon be inundated with empty-nesters. The project has been delayed for several reasons, mainly because the market keeps changing and lending institutions dictate the project’s direction. Mr. Groendahl explained this is an upscale project and although not prohibited, families with children will probably never occupy the apartments because market rates are $3,000 a month.

Mr. Antalek asked the following questions: has a vehicle traffic study, including school buses been done; are improvements planned for the main entrance; will a full Site Plan be prepared for public review; does the MTA know about the change in plans; are there Federal monies involved that would regulate occupancy; and will a full time person reside on site to maintain and clean the property. In response, Mr. Groendahl reported private funding is being used and a caretaker will live on site. Rental costs per apartment will range from $2,200 to $3,000 and the approximate build-out time is 18 months from approval to construction completion.

Bill Metzger, 95 Knevels Avenue, explained he had expressed concerns about emergency access when the project was first reviewed as senior housing, particularly if the spur were to become active again. Mr. McCormack reported the MTA will not say if they have intentions of reactivating that line. Emergency access has been secured on the adjacent property parallel to the tracks leading north from the site to the City’s highway garage. Mr. Metzger recalled three derailments on the line and noted one was a fuel tanker that would have blocked both the main and emergency access. Additionally, he feels the elevation drawing presented for the public hearing was not an accurate depiction of the area. Mr. Metzger estimated that 120 apartments would conservatively bring an additional 200 vehicles to the area. He asked if consideration had been given to traffic on surrounding streets and if so, how the Wolcott Avenue intersection would be affected. Mr. Metzger explained lands on the other side of Tioronda Avenue are being developed and new residents may not be aware of the situation. He expressed concerns for additional children and their safety; infrastructure, sewer service and how nearby residents’ water pressure will be affected.

Lee Kyriacou, 1076 Wolcott Avenue and City Councilmember, reported he has followed the project from the beginning. Originally the building was to be preserved and when they decided to do complete new construction, he became concerned about preserving the City’s heritage. Although aware that changes will take place during an approval process, this project has undergone a number of major revisions. Mr. Kyriacou reported the City is currently updating the City’s Master Plan and there are a number of outstanding issues that may affect this project. Suggested changes include a consolidated firehouse across the street from this project (on the southwest corner of Tioronda Avenue and Route 9D) and altering the entrance to Sargent School from Tioronda Avenue rather than from Route 9D. Additionally, consideration has been given to applying the Historical Overlay zone to properties along the Fishkill Creek. He explained the Master Plan committee may determine a need for affordable senior housing or conventional apartments. Mr. Kyriacou said he offered these issues for contemplation.

Randall Martin, 19 Water Street, asked where the “empty-nesters” reportedly headed to Beacon to afford apartments at $3,000 a month would be coming from. He and other newcomers came here because rents are lower, larger spaces are cheaper or they could afford to buy a house. Mr. Martin believes bank institutions are changing the demographics of Beacon from a blue collar City to an area of empty-nesters because that is their choice of funding. He feels the property owners in Beacon are paying taxes to afford infrastructure upgrades that are needed to support this type of facility.

Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street, reported the 1974 Master Plan outlined plans for a recreation area near Mt. Beacon Park however it turned into a housing development. He expressed concern about increased rental costs and additional school children.

Shannon Murphy, 59 Beacon Street, expressed her dismay that families with children are being dissuaded from moving to Beacon. She feels development should not be geared to promote residents that only move here to commute to New York City. Ms. Murphy believed more effort should be made to increase public transportation.

Considering the number of outstanding items, Mr. Hibbs announced that the public hearing will remain open for the month of June.

ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN

APPROVAL, PARKING LOT, SUBMITTED BY SPRINGFIELD BAPTIST

CHURCH, 8 MATTIE COOPER SQUARE

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice as printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal on

May 4, 2005 and opened the public hearing relative to an application for Site Plan Approval for a parking lot, submitted by Springfield Baptist Church, located on 8 Mattie Cooper Square, identified on City tax maps as Section 5954, Block 27, Lot 845957.

Dennis Walden introduced Springfield Baptist Church representatives Reverend Perry and Ralph Middleton, and outlined their proposal to construct a parking lot on a vacant parcel adjacent to the church on Mattie Cooper Square. Mr. Walden explained they planned to utilize an on site underground stormwater management system, however testing revealed the property is clay and cannot support that type of system. They are now investigating the possibility of taking water from the site to the nearest stormwater basin at the intersection of North Elm and Church Street. The parking lot will provide 31 off-street parking spaces for the church that currently has no parking facility. Church representatives feel it will enhance the neighborhood as well as provide parking for parishioners. The church has been in this location since 1861 and parishioners now park on nearby streets. Reverend Perry reported the church has become more active and has approximately 350 members that attend regularly. He feels the parking lot will beautify the neighborhood and get some cars off the street.

Mr. Stolman advised the applicant that there is still some confusion because Sheets

#1 and #2 are not consistent with one another. The photometric contour plan needs to be more detailed, wheel stop details are not sufficient, color and details must be provided for the fencing and refuse enclosure, and landscaping detail have not been presented.

Mr. Tully explained his comments regarding stormwater management will change as modifications are made to the plan. He advised the applicant to be sure the City system can adequately handle additional run off that will result from this project. Mr. Tully provided a copy of his written comments for consideration.

Reverend Perry reported the church operates seven days a week although main services are held twice on Sundays and bible study on Wednesday nights. Mr. Dexter affirmed that surrounding streets are very congested during services. Reverend Perry feels this parking lot will relieve a majority of the problem and accommodate most vehicles for smaller events. He believes the parking lot will beautify the neighborhood and provide the best use of their property.

Barbara Baker, 11 Digger Phelps Court and church parishioner, reported the church is trying to be better prepared for weddings and funerals. New parishioners are joining and the church needs space. She outlined the church’s history, as well as the renaming of streets now known as Digger Phelps Court and Mattie Cooper Square. Ms. Baker said the church does its best to keep neighborhood disturbance to a minimum.

Randall Sloan, 4 Mattie Cooper Square, shares the largest lot line with the church. He posed many questions regarding the zoning code as submitted and listed below:

Section 223(1)(f) Is it true that the City of Beacon enacted and enforces a zoning plan which serves to promote uses of land with particular regard to the avoidance of congestion in the streets and the provision of safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements appropriate to the various uses of land and buildings throughout the City?

Our end of Church Street is within a residential district (R1-5) but directly across the street from a large strip of “PB business district”, which is zoned for off-street parking. I think extending additional off-street parking into this residential district would set a precedent that would dilute the aesthetic appeal, quiet and sanctity which, by definition, “more restrictive” residential district zoning helps to ensure. More off-street parking so nearby current and future required off-street parking must be carefully considered lest it render this residential district just an extension of the downtown business district.

Section 2235(e) Will an environmental impact statement be required?

Section 223.26(c)(1) Does 223.26(c)(1) prohibit side yards being use for parking within 5 feet of a lot line? If so, does this render moot the portion of this site plan approval which depends upon the side yard of 8 Mattie Cooper Square to safely situate nearly 30 parking spaces?

Section 223.26(C)(2)(c) I was unaware that the site development plan put forth was contingent upon a combining of the two properties located at 6 and 8 Mattie Cooper Square (Church Street). Without combining these two properties there is not adequate room for vehicular circulation and maneuvering as per Section 223.26(C)(2)(c). What public notice and comment period is required for two properties to be combined with the intention of increasing the intensity of use of a parcel in a residential neighborhood?

Section 223.26(C)(3) Will the “no obstruction to driver vision” requirement for any parking lot site plan negatively impact rights to adjoining property owners to erect and maintain an attractive privacy hedge or fence? If this is so, other residential properties are suddenly restricted due to the granting of this use on an adjacent property?

Section 223.26(F) Is the house owned by the church that is located at 13 Digger Phelps Place (directly across the street from the church and used exclusively for church activities) required to have off-street parking or is this requirement currently un-enforced? I ask because should enforcement of off-street parking for 13 Digger Phelps Court, considered a place of worship / place of assembly type of use be forthcoming, we will see yet more church-related vehicular use in the same area at the same time, adding to the impact on the neighborhood. This is worth considering in conjunction with the proposed site plan for 6 Mattie Cooper Square (Church Street). This is yet another reason to require an environmental impact report be submitted to the Planning Board and be made available upon release to the interested public.

Section 223.39 Is it true that no non-residential use shall be permitted where it is determined by the City that the type and number of vehicle trips it is estimated to generate would be expected to produce unusual traffic hazards or congestion?

Will the Planning Board review and decision making around this issue be transparent to the interested public or will this important decision which impacts our property values and the safety of our neighborhood be made behind closed doors?

Jill Reynolds, 10 Willow Street, appreciated the church’s attempts to address parking problems, but was opposed to the parking lot or any further paving based on principle. She feels a parking lot would be a detriment to the residential character of the neighborhood and suggested the church look into an alternate solution, i.e. car pooling or utilizing M&T’s parking lot. Ms. Reynolds said she has never had a problem with parking and her driveway has never been blocked.

Barbara Baker said St. John’s Church and Halvey’s Funeral Home has similar parking problems and no one has complained about them. She expressed hope that they would also try to create additional off-street parking.

Theresa Lowery, 12 Willow Street, has lived in Beacon for the last five years and noticed parking has gotten worse. On Mondays she cleans up papers and litter that is not there on Sunday morning. The traffic situation happens every day of the week and her driveway is often blocked because parishioners park so close to her driveway that she can’t see to get in or out. Ms. Lowery has called the police regarding the condition. She can’t have a yard sale because there is no available parking and there is no space for her visitors to park. Ms. Lowery complained about garbage that she picked up after a recent fish fry held by the church. She expressed concern that emergency vehicles have no place to turn around. Ms. Lowery reported after services children run around, pull at her fence and torment her dogs. She feels a 30 space parking lot will not improve her situation. Ms. Lowery respects the church but pleaded with church representatives to be more considerate for nearby residents. She complained about late night noise created by parishioners when returning from bus trips. In response, Mr. Middleton said they would try to remedy some of her concerns however the issues are not relevant to the parking lot proposal.

Victor Naguiat, 2 Mattie Cooper Square, asked how they would fit 31 spaces into a lot the same size as the municipal lot located on Main Street. He expressed concern for the lack of curbs, drainage and potential use of the lot for other purposes. Mr. Naguiat also had problems with parishioners and once called police when a fight broke out. One child threw a large rock at the neighbor’s dog and it almost died as a result. He feels parishioners could utilize the DMV parking lot or municipal lot which is located only a block away.

Reverend Perry explained incidents can take place any time people congregate and the issue is irrelevant to their parking proposal. They will advise their parishioners to be more attentive to the noise, litter and parking near driveways.

After some discussion regarding issues unrelated to the parking lot, Mr. Hibbs announced that the public hearing will remain open for the month of June.

ITEM NO. 3 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,

2 LOTS, SUBMITTED BY FERDINAND & SUSANNE METZ, 8 SLOCUM ROAD

Richard Cantor of Cantor, Teahan and Constantino, explained his client’s plan for a two lot subdivision has changed in terms of access to Lot #2. This plan proposes an easement across the existing driveway on Lot #1, with a new driveway continuing to Lot #2. An alternate plan for a driveway on Lot #2 was shown to demonstrate possible placement, if the easement is terminated by the owner of Lot #1. The new owner of Lot #2 would be required to construct a new driveway if and when that happens. This plan will reduce costs and lessen unnecessary disturbance to the property. A common driveway would serve the beginning of each driveway and then split to separate driveways thereafter.

Mr. Tully announced that the City Council is currently creating legislation for common/shared driveways and private roads therefore advised the applicant to be sure those requirements are followed. He asked that the design of the second driveway, i.e. grading, areas of disturbance and construction details, etc. so it can be reviewed and approved now to eliminate the need to return to the Planning Board for further approvals. Mr. Tully asked what circumstances would trigger the termination of the easement and construction of the second driveway. That information should be clearly noted on the plan, as well as who is responsible for construction and maintenance. A maintenance agreement for the common portion of the driveway must be provided.

Mr. Stolman said the type of trees must be specified on the plan. In connection with engineering comments, the drawing should show where the driveway for Lot #2 will be located with written notation. The purpose of the easement must be clearly noted on the plan as well as on Page 2. Documentation on the legal easements satisfactory to the City Attorney must be drafted to file with the deed.

Discussion took place regarding wording listed in Note #7 which should be made clearer in terms of the extent of easement areas, purpose of easement, and location of the driveway for Lot #2. As presently proposed, the owner of Lot#2 would be free to construct the driveway at any time and the easement would terminate when decided by the owner of Lot #1. Mr. Tully explained neighboring property owners need to know that this new driveway could be constructed at any time. Board members preferred a single driveway configuration. After some discussion, Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of June, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 4 DISTRIBUTE DRAFT DEIS FOR PROPOSED WATERFRONT

DEVELOPMENT, SUBMITTED BY SCENIC HUDSON, LONG DOCK BEACON

In conjunction with Scenic Hudson and The Foss Group Beacon, Matt Rudikoff submitted a preliminary draft of the Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Long Dock project at the waterfront. The Planning Board, as Lead Agency, will review the submission for completeness to determine that the document sufficiently addresses items raised in the scoping session. Mr. Rudikoff explained that they have subsequently determined the project requires a subdivision of land owned by Scenic Hudson that is located in the Town of Fishkill. The Town of Fishkill will be added to the list of interested parties and will be sent the original SEQRA document for review and comment. The subdivision application before the Town of Fishkill must be included in Beacon’s review.

Marjorie Groten explained this document, a milestone in the project, represents many hours of work from the design team, Matt Rudikoff’s office and Scenic Hudson. She clarified that as soon as the Planning Board verifies the DEIS to be complete, it will be made available to the public and posted on their website.

ITEM NO. 5 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSED 2 LOT SUBDIVISION,

762 WOLCOTT AVENUE, PROPERTY OWNED BY DAVID & MARIA SAENZ

Dennis Walden explained this proposed 2 lot subdivision of property on Wolcott Avenue owned by David and Maria Saenz, is to re-establish two lots that were later combined into one parcel. They have an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances needed to proceed with the subdivision: 1) Lot width of 75 ft. (85 ft. required) for each lot and; 2) side yard setbacks of 12.9 ft. and 12.0 ft. (15 ft. each side and a total of 40 ft. required). Mr. Tully said the sewer service for the proposed lot may be problematic because a new sewer line under construction did not take a new house into account. Resolution of this issue is very time sensitive and if a direct connection into the main on Route 9D is proposed, plans must be coordinated with the NYS Department of Transportation.

ITEM NO. 6 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, DAY CARE FACILITY, SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY OWNER MARK

DEFABIO, 1064 WOLCOTT AVENUE (ROSE HILL MANOR DAY SCHOOL)

Charlie Brown of Taconic Design, outlined changes made to the plan as advised at the last meeting. The new building was shifted to provide more clearance for the parking lot/turn around area and a guardrail will be installed at the lower end of the parking lot. A drainage report was provided to address stormwater quality. Parking was recalculated for the entire facility to include existing and proposed buildings. Additional information on sediment and erosion control will be submitted. Intended hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. which, if acceptable, will be notated on the drawings.

Mr. Stolman explained more lighting information is needed and Mr. Brown explained they continue to work with the manufacturer. Mr. Stolman said they must indicate which lights will be provided with back-shields. Although the applicant wanted to apply for a sign permit under separate application, Mr. Stolman advised signage details must be part of this application so additional Planning Board approval is not needed. Sign details should provide colors, materials, dimensions, type face and lighting. Mr. Brown reported they are working on securing an easement for water and sewer connection from the cul-de-sac on Harbor Hill Court. Mr. Tully explained his comments were mostly technical in nature. He still had concern with the stormwater management system that is located on top of an embankment. Mr. Brown explained they plan to underground electric and cable utilities to the new building only because connection to the existing building is hindered by existing sheds and rocky terrain. After some consideration, Ms. Rapalje made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of June, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 7 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION &

SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-UNIT HOUSING, SUBMITTED BY EAST

MAIN MILLS/CHURCHILL MILLS, LLC, ONE EAST MAIN STREET

Mr. Hibbs recused himself from this item as he has performed business with the applicant; Mr. Sheers chaired the meeting.

Jennifer VanTuyl, attorney for East Main Mills, explained they were last before the Board 11 months ago. They are continuing efforts to address environmental concerns, on-site parking (focusing on efficiency in terms of quantity and visibility), green spaces, building scale, and their relation and integration with the landscape of Main Street. As a result, project sponsors had some fundamental rethinking of the development concept.

Ted Liebman, of Liebman Melting Architects & Planners, introduced colleagues Alan Melting and Shawn Flynn. He explained they have been partners in business for over 30 years, with a focus in housing and neighborhood design. Their practice centers on incorporating qualities from neighborhoods of the 19^th Century into a 21^st Century design that hides vehicles from view.

Shawn Flynn presented several sketches of the site, including a bird’s eye view of the completed project, which will be done in two phases. Phase I (Building A) will be constructed first with a surface parking lot that will be slightly altered during construction of Phase II. Two tiers of parking will be provided in Phase II (Building B) with three entry locations: one into Building A and two into Building B. Mr. Flynn demonstrated plans for the courtyard, second, third and fourth floors. Perspective street level drawings showed views of the project from East Main Street looking west, and from Main Street looking south. Building A will be renovated with a penthouse and the stone mill building will be replaced with a structure having the same footprint and floor area. Both buildings will consist of loft apartments. Building B, or Phase II, occupies a large area of the site and will provide parking for 225 vehicles. This structure will consist of duplex apartments with a landscape courtyard and elevator service. Floor plans are similar throughout the building and the roof will be terraced. In general, all apartments lofts with sizes ranging from 650 to 950 sq. ft.; the largest is approximately 2,000 sq. ft.

The site is provided with two points of access and one point of egress. The main entry to the site will be from Churchill Street providing access to building lobbies, visitor entrance, deliveries and mail boxes. The East Main Street entrance leads to the lower parking level and both are interconnected. All vehicles will exit onto East Main Street. The site will not be gated and the public can walk along a landscaped green path near the creek leading to the courtyard. The path will go over a relocated sewer line provided with a 30 ft. easement. The easement will also serve as a fire lane for emergency access. A storm water treatment tank will collect water for treatment before returning to the creek. Vehicle parking will be either inside or under buildings therefore will not be visible from the street. The proposed building architecture fits in well with the context of Main Street. A scaled model was presented to provide a better visual aspect of the project.

Alan Melting explained this proposal transforms an abandoned and unused property into a neighborhood for 150 families that will bring customers and enliven the east end of Main Street. There will be more than adequate parking not visible from the street. Over 50% of the site is landscaped space, 9% is driveways and the remaining 31% is building coverage. The entire length of the walkway along Fishkill Creek, from East Main Street to Churchill Street, will be open to the public. The profile of Main Street will be maintained with buildings the same height as those across the street. Mr. Melting explained this project was designed to replicate the spirit of industrial mill buildings that will provide an anchor to East Main Street.

Ms. VanTuyl explained the applicants are aware it will take time to get through the process and will continue to look at all issues of concern. The plans continue to be refined and they expect to return next month with further details. The public took the opportunity to closely view the site model.

ITEM NO. 8 CONTINUE REVIEW FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR

SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 149 MAIN STREET, PROPERTY OWNED BY RONALD

PICCONE

Mr. Hibbs returned to chair the remainder of the meeting. Aryeh Siegel, project architect presented a revised drawing including changes to the parking lot, drainage and landscaping.

Mr. Stolman advised the applicant that elevation drawings do not accurately represent the buildings. Mr. Siegel was aware of the discrepancy and will adjust windows on the plan. Mr. Stolman noted utility lines that currently run along the building are not shown and Mr. Siegel reported they plan to run utilities underground. Mr. Dexter explained a Certificate of Appropriateness is required and the drawing must reflect the project exactly as it will be built out. Mr. Stolman asked that the utility locations be made very clear on the plan. Because 145 and 149 Main Street (adjacent properties) have the same owner, Mr. Stolman stressed the importance that each work together. He felt the parking may need to be shifted so one building is not compromised in the process of improving the other. Much discussion took place about the best way to create a plan that will work for both properties in terms of layout and landscaping.

Mr. Tully said the site architect and engineer need to coordinate their plans to be sure there are no design conflicts, i.e. grading, drainage, access, etc. The adequacy of the City’s existing storm drainage system to accept runoff from the site, and compliance with NYSDEC requirements, must be verified. Storm drain profiles and a note stating who will own and maintain the line must be added to the plan. Details for restoration of curbing, sidewalk and pavement are needed. Adequate access to the dumpster must be shown.

Mr. Dexter asked that the following details be listed on the plan: limits of curbing; a note indicating the chain link fence is to be removed; notation as to which direction the finished side of fence will face; clear indication that the pole and street light will either remain or be removed; and clarification that the rear portion of the building will be either restored as brick or sided.

ITEM NO. 9 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT,

RESIDENTIAL/RETAIL, SUBMITTED BY 544 MAIN STREET, LLC,

542-544 MAIN STREET

This application requires a density variance because 14 apartments are proposed and only 11 are permitted. A parking variance is also required because the use requires 29 off-street parking spaces and only 14 are provided. The applicant has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals and is on the May 17^th agenda. Mr. Dexter explained they will be removing and rebuilding the rear addition. The property, located next to the Verplanck Avenue municipal parking lot, has an easement that will provide access to the rear. Members reviewed the application at length and felt the requested variances should be granted for the following reasons. The property is entitled to utilize two parking spaces in the Verplanck Avenue municipal parking lot, currently no off-street parking is provided and this proposal provides a 14 space lot to the rear of the building. After much discussion regarding the decrepit condition of the building, the increased value that restoration will bring to the east end of Main Street, and considering the fact that the proposed parking situation will neither have a positive or negative affect on the area, the Planning Board felt a positive vote would benefit the goals of the City. As a result, Mr. Sheers made a motion to make a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 10 REVIEW AMENDMENT TO EXISTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL,

SUBMITTED BY SCENIC HUDSON, BEACON POINT, RED FLYNN DRIVE.

Marjorie Groten of Scenic Hudson explained the City Council changed zoning to allow large scale projects to seek approvals in segments. That legislation allowed them to seek approval for Beacon Point which permitted shoreline stabilization work and construction of a pedestrian pathway. Ms. Groten explained they talked to Mr. Stolman regarding minor site plan amendments and he advised them to return to the Planning Board for approval. The trail that was originally along the boardwalk would be slightly relocated so it can connect to the larger design evolving with the Long Dock project. Secondly, the parking lot along the access road would be made perpendicular the road. The lot is currently being used that way due to clearing that has been done. Ms. Groten reported they are testing various materials in the landscape plan, as well as experimenting with different paving materials in the parking lot. They are currently bringing in soil, planting a lawn and natural vegetation.

Mr. Stolman said the concept is fine but requested a larger scale plan with more detail be provided for review. There were no engineering comments. Mr. Sablinski expressed concern about restroom facilities noting none are shown on the plan. After some discussion, Mr. Sheers made a motion to approve the proposed amendments subject to the applicant providing a larger scale plan showing more detail, and adding a restroom facility, seconded by Mr. Sablinski. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Miscellaneous Business

Certificate of Appropriateness

Mr. Dexter presented a colored elevation drawing of proposed façade restoration for 180 Main Street. The plan was reviewed and approved by Mr. Hibbs. After reviewing the elevation drawing, Mr. Sheers made a motion to approve the proposal and grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for 180 Main Street, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Master Plan Committee

Mr. Hibbs reported the City Council is working on updating Beacon’s Master Plan and the Mayor requested three Planning Board members to be part of the committee. The first meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 18^th. After some discussion, Mr. Hibbs and Mr. Gunn will take part in the endeavor. Mr. Hibbs will contact members not in attendance to meet the Mayor’s request.

Architectural Review Subcommittee

Mr. Hibbs reported one more Planning Board member is needed to fill a seat on the Architectural Review Committee. He explained Mr. Arquilla continues to recover from major surgery and Mr. Williams is not always readily available due to his workload. After some encouragement, Mr. Gunn agreed to join the committee.

There was no further business and Mr. Sheers made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.