Beacon City Planning Board

August 9, 2005

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. A workshop took place at 7:00 p.m. and the regular meeting commenced at 7:10 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs; Members Randall Williams and Spring Attaway; Alternate Members Anne Rapalje and John Gunn; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; Deputy Building Inspector David Buckley, City Engineer Art Tully and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Members Vince Arquilla, Ed Sablinski, Tony Lassiter and Jay Sheers were absent.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the July 12, 2005 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. A motion was made by Ms. Rapalje, seconded by Mr. Williams 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 THOMAS NINNIE, WILSON

STREET

Mr. Hibbs noted the public hearing notice was printed in the Poughkeepsie

Journal on August 3, and opened the public hearing on the application for Subdivision of property (2 residential lots) owned by Thomas Ninnie, located on 99 Wilson Street, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 6055, Block 81, Lot 575041.

Dennis Walden and Thomas Ninnie presented a revised two lot subdivision plan for review. Mr. Tully reported some engineering comments have not yet been addressed and Mr. Walden explained work continues on resolving outstanding items.

Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street asked if the project met all other expectations. He supported the application, noting the City should be consistent in their requirements.

Mr. Tully noted outstanding engineering items can be resolved.

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

Mr. Gunn made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration for the proposed subdivision, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Williams made a motion to grant preliminary subdivision plat approval; waive the public hearing for the final subdivision plat based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same, and grant conditional final subdivision plat approval subject to fulfilling outstanding consultant comments, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, ACCESSORY APARTMENT, 47 SOUTH AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY

JOHN GUNN

Mr. Gunn recused himself from this item as it is his project’s application. Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal on August 3, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for a Special Use Permit for an accessory apartment, owned by John Gunn, located on 47 South Avenue, identified on City tax maps as Section 5954, Block 34, Lot 679833.

Aryeh Siegel, representing John Gunn, described his proposal to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 47 South Avenue. He reported the Zoning Board of Appeals granted variances for the apartment size and rear yard setback, contingent upon the execution of a maintenance agreement for access over the adjacent property. Mr. Stolman reviewed the City’s accessory apartment regulations and verified that other than the granted variances, the apartment meets all requirements. One of the two buildings will be owner-occupied and sufficient parking has been provided. Mr. Stolman asked that the variances be listed and a note indicating one of the buildings will be owner-occupied on the plan.

Paula Hlavacek, reported her grandmother owns an adjacent parcel at 49 South Avenue and she will be purchasing it soon. She had concern that her deed shows the subject property is accessed through a right-of-way over her property. Ms. Hlavacek also noted minutes from the June 2005 Planning Board meeting indicated the parking area may be “impractical”. She will provide a copy of her deed for review so any terms or restrictions listed in the document can be compared to the survey. Ms. Hlavacek asked that the garbage storage area located near her property be relocated. Although Mr. Gunn said his friends would occupy the accessory apartment, she had concerns about other tenants in the future.

Mr. Aryeh explained that right-of-way is located on Mr. Gunn’s property and provides access to the end of the driveway serving 49 South Avenue. Mr. Gunn will provide a copy of his survey to compare it with the neighboring deed.

Mr. Tully asked if the building was occupied and Mr. Gunn confirmed that it was not occupied although it is served with existing utilities. Mr. Tully advised him to provide the size and location of the municipal water hook up to show that it has adequate flow and pressure to serve both buildings. Additionally, information on the existing septic system must be provided to show that it is adequate. The plan title should be appropriately titled as “Special Use Permit”.

There were no further comments from the public and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The applicant will return with updated information.

ITEM NO. 3 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, RESTAURANT FACILITY, 236-240 MAIN STREET, SUBMITTED BY

BEACON TERMINAL ASSOCIATES

Aryeh Siegel outlined revisions made to the plan based on comments from the last meeting. Concerns were presented regarding the parking lot entrance/egress that is provided over an 11 ft. wide driveway/right-of-way. Mr. Siegel added safety features including speed bumps, a 180º security mirror, signage and low to the ground lighting. Some parking spaces were shifted to avoid a utility pole located in the center of the lot.

Mr. Tully continued to have concerns about the location of the utility pole and asked if it could be relocated. He asked that the size of handicap spaces be verified and show adequate access to the garbage enclosure on the plan. Mr. Tully believed the lots had been combined however cross easements must be provided for the other involved parcel. Mr. Siegel reported cross easement documentation was submitted to the City Attorney for review. City Attorney Pisanelli verified he had received the documents but had not reviewed them yet. Mr. Siegel reported they will contact Central Hudson about relocating the utility pole.

Mr. Hibbs reported that since the last meeting, he reviewed other areas on Main Street with regard to close-fitting ingress/egress. A similar situation exists elsewhere and even though vehicles exit onto Main Street, there have been no reported problems. Now that additional safety features have been integrated, and considering the lot empties onto a one-way side street, Mr. Hibbs was prepared to support the application. Ms. Attaway had concern about the location of the garbage enclosure and Mr. Siegel explained trash pick up would occur before the restaurant is open and the movable cans would be wheeled to Main Street for service.

Mr. Tully questioned the capability of ground lighting because the fixtures are so low to the ground they will be covered with snow during winter months and may not last long. He recommended trying them but felt they should not be required for approval.

After some discussion, Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant a negative SEQRA declaration, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant Site Plan Approval subject to conditions enumerated earlier, relocating the utility pole and City Attorney approval of cross easements, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 4 CONTINUE REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

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

542-544 MAIN STREET

Aryeh Siegel and owner Stacy Shurgin reported variances were granted for parking and increased density. Ms. Shurgin explained the issue of obtaining a right-of-way through the municipal parking lot to access the new parking lot has been resolved and the need for retaining walls has been eliminated. Ms. Shurgin reported they are

working with the City Council in changing the layout of the Verplanck Avenue parking lot to provide access through the rear of the lot while creating two additional parking spaces.

Mr. Tully provided Mr. Siegel with a copy of his engineering comments and Mr. Williams made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of September, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 5 CONTINUE REVIEW REGARDING DEIS COMPLETENESS,

WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, SUBMITTED BY SCENIC HUDSON LAND

TRUST, INC. AND THE FOSS GROUP BEACON, LLC, LONG DOCK BEACON

Mr. Stolman explained he reviewed changes made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Long Dock proposal and deemed it essentially complete for the purpose of filing and public review. Mr. Tully reviewed the DEIS and felt the engineering issues of water supply, sanitary sewer disposal and the storm drainage analysis have been appropriately addressed; he believed the document to be complete.

Mr. Stolman advised the Board that the DEIS can be accepted as complete for the purpose of filing and public review subject to one minor revision. A draft notice of completion can be prepared for review, the public hearing scheduled for the DEIS and a 10-day comment period can be established upon completion of the public hearing. Mr. Stolman said that by all indications, the Town of Fishkill will be allowing the Beacon Planning Board to go forward as Lead Agency in the SEQRA process.

After some discussion, Mr. Gunn made a motion that the Planning Board finds the DEIS to be complete for the purpose of filing and public hearing subject to the minor revision; to authorize the distribution of a notice of completion and public hearing on the DEIS to involved and interested agencies; establish a 14-day comment period upon completion of the public hearing; and schedule a public hearing for the month of September, seconded by Mr. Williams. The public hearing will be for the DEIS will not include the Special Permit or Site Plan Approval. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 6 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN

APPROVAL, 64 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS, SUBMITTED BY BEACON

COMMUNITY FOUNDATION (ST. FRANCIS PROPERTY), CONKLIN

STREET

Dan Leary of Cuddy & Feder, LLP and Peter Karis of Insite Engineering attended the meeting to review plan changes based on comments from the July meeting. Mr. Leary verified the property was rezoned from RD-3 to RD-5 by Local Law 10 of 2004. He provided a summary of Federal legislation and regulations governing senior housing as requested. Mr. Stolman asked for clarification, specifically asking if a tenant would be required to move if they were to take custody of a small child. Mr. Leary explained they are committed to making the facility open to tenants age 55 and older, intending to meet the threshold that at least 80% of the units be occupied by at least person who is age 55 or older. There is a possibility that tenants under age 50 can reside at the facility because that is what the Federal law allows. Mr. Stolman explained his goal was to understand the specifics of the project in terms of traffic generation, parking requirements, etc. Assigned spaces are not planned at this time therefore Mr. Stolman advised the addition and designation of a visitor parking area.

Mr. Tully provided the engineer with a list of his engineering comments and reported most are technical in nature. He said the water line should not be an extension of the City’s system because it will only serve the proposed project and there are no plans for other extensions in the area. He advised the applicant to provide a water meter pit at the tie-in location and provide detail on a meter pit.

Mr. Dexter asked the applicant to identify Fire Department connections to verify they don’t conflict with parking spaces and are completely accessible.

After some discussion, Mr. Williams made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of September, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. 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 done work for the applicant; Mr. Williams chaired the meeting.

Jennifer VanTuyl, attorney for the applicant, reported her client continues to work on the environmental review process. Issues of concern included the impact of the project on the Main Street streetscape and neighborhood contact, visual impact of blacktop for on-site parking, views of the project from the creek and flow of traffic to and through the site. Taking those concerns into consideration, the applicant redesigned the project, provided more detailed drawings and submitted an engineering report from Larry Paggi. Project architects, Allen Melting and Ted Liebman, of the Liebman Melting Partnership presented an overview of the project.

The proposal is to provide 150 dwelling units on the 3.25 acre site consisting of four residential buildings. The large five story building will be renovated in conjunction with new construction and have 50 loft-style units. Two newly constructed buildings will occupy two corners of the partially below grade two-story parking garage with 46 units in each. A fourth building will be a two-story townhouse structure facing the Fishkill Creek. Vehicular access to the site will be from Churchill Street and a new street located parallel to the railroad tracks below the Main Street elevation. One entrance will lead to the upper level of the garage and the second entrance will access the lower level of the parking garage. There will also be an exit and entrance access from East Main Street with an internal turnaround area. Vehicular access has been designed to have minimum impact on Main Street. The sewer line that currently runs through the center of the site will be relocated along the creek, under the pedestrian walkway and emergency vehicle access. Off-street parking (approximately 245 spaces) will not be in public view as it will all be accommodated in the two story parking garage. The new buildings at the corners of the parking garage will be four stories high – exactly the same height as commercial buildings lining Main Street. This will effectively create a second side elevation in that stretch of Main Street. The view from and across the creek has been enhanced by creating the two story townhouse structure.

Ms. VanTuyl explained they are seeking input to see if the Board feels the plan is headed in the right direction. A three dimensional model was presented to provide a better visual display of the project design. Mr. Stolman advised the Board to look at the plan to determine if parking and massing as presented is acceptable. He spent time working with the applicant and the two main items of concern were building locations and the concept of providing parking below grade. Ms. Attaway felt underground parking could be dangerous in a security perspective. Ms. VanTuyl explained that due to the amount of off-street parking required, the original plan not only took up a great deal of the site, it reduced site landscaping. This layout makes on site parking less obvious while taking advantage of the property’s natural elevations. Security measures will be implemented and access to the parking garage limited to tenants. Ms. VanTuyl explained the plan continues to collaborate with the City’s goals for a pedestrian/bike trail along the creek. Although the path is intended to be part of a continuous path along the creek connecting with a Greenway trail, it is not intended to be a “destination” park. The townhouse layout provides additional security by providing windows in public sight; the same concept was considered with buildings overlooking the center landscaped courtyard. Both sides of Main Street will be uniform, and the creek view will be that of two story homes, not a massive building. The one way access road along the railroad tracks will be adequately buffered and wide enough for emergency vehicles. The first and second levels of the parking garage are independent with no internal flow between each. The lower level units have small private areas overlooking the well-lit courtyard square. A traffic study will be done to address traffic ingress/egress and internal circulation.

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

SPECIAL USE PERMIT, DAY CARE FACILITY, SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY

OWNER MARK DEFABIO, 1064 WOLCOTT AVENUE (ROSE HILL MANOR

DAY SCHOOL)

This item was taken off the agenda at the applicant’s request.

ITEM NO. 9 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 3

RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY KIMMEL, STONE STREET

Mr. Hibbs returned to chair the remainder of the meeting. Glennon Watson of Badey & Watson, introduced the Kimmel’s proposal for a three lot subdivision. The original application was filed in 2004 and subsequently put on hold pending City Council action on private road legislation. Private road regulations have since been codified and the plan was revised to meet those requirements. Two houses share the existing private drive and this subdivision will create a total of five lots. One of the lots is, and will continue to be, accessed from Stone Street. A full cul-de-sac was not included because the applicant feels a hammerhead-type turnaround on a portion of the driveway to Lot A would require less site disturbance and be more appropriate to the scale of the subdivision.

Mr. Tully explained this is the first time new private road standards are being applied to an application. Private roads cannot provide access for more than four residential lots, except that up to two additional lots may use the road provided they have the minimum required frontage on a public street. Additionally, if the private road ends in a cul-de-sac, the Planning Board can consider an alternate layout when a full size cul-de-sac is impractical due to site conditions. The plan proposes Lot No. 2 to be accessed from the private road while Lot No. 3 is accessed from Overlook Avenue, therefore it should be clarified that only four lots would receive access off Kimmel Drive. Mr. Tully advised the applicant to refer the proposal to the Fire Department to be sure an adequate turn around area is provided. A profile of the entire length of the private road, as well as storm drainage information, must be provided. Details on how the footing drains and roof leaders will be discharged should be provided as part of the storm drainage analysis. Mrs. Kimmel explained this private road has been in existence for many years therefore questioned the need for drainage improvements. Mr. Tully explained the existing drive will be graded and paved therefore details on drainage are required. The plan should show size and material for the proposed water main extension, as well as indicate ownership. Information should be provided with regard to the adequacy of flow and pressure in order to serve both the existing and proposed homes. The plan should note responsibility of ownership and maintenance of the private road. Bulk requirements as calculated from the shoulders of the road must be shown.

Mr. Hibbs reported a neighboring property owner informed him that the property was at one time used as a City dumpsite. Mrs. Kimmel reported she purchased the property from the City and the site was used only to dump items such as tree stumps, wood, etc., nothing hazardous in nature. She said the City should have those records, however there are several structures on the property and they have never had any problems. Mr. Hibbs requested a Phase I Environmental Review as a matter of course and part of the EAF (environmental assessment) process. The applicant will return next month with the requested information and changes.

ITEM NO. 10 CONTINUE PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR

SUBDIVISION, RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PRESHROCK

CORPORATION, HIDDENBROOKE PROPERTY

Glennon Watson of Badey & Watson, introduced Preshrock’s proposal for a subdivision of property, known as Hiddenbrooke, located off DePuyster Avenue. The applicant has been before the Board informally but now additional research has been done. They hope to cluster development in the more densely zoned area in order to leave a large portion of the property undeveloped. Mr. Watson explained the plans are not fully developed and they are seeking input and guidance based on the latest proposal. Most of the 123 acre parcel is located in the City of Beacon; the remainder being in the Town of Fishkill. Topography and contours at a 50 ft. scale were added to the plan. Most wetland areas were located, specifically where impacted by the subdivision, on the general western portion of property and along the creek. Wetlands near the former chapel were located however areas in Fishkill or along the intermediate area were not. Wetlands were identified by Steve Coleman, who has worked with them on many occasions, and he was asked to be specifically careful about placement and sketching out locations. Typically, his sketches are wider than found on ground and a 100 ft. buffer area was provided around the wetland areas to provide a generous interpretation. Slope information was provided showing development areas not too steep or close to wetland areas. As a result of this information, the layout was adjusted and the overall lot count was reduced to 62 units. The subdivision was laid out, avoiding the aforementioned areas in order to come up with an acceptable number of lots for cluster development. Mr. Hibbs noted some of the lots overlap and are substantially absorbed into the light green areas of the wetland outline. Mr. Badey was aware of the situation but reminded him that the wetland areas were generously delineated. The property is located in the R1-40 and R1-10 zoning districts. The plan was submitted in an effort to see what additional detail is needed to determine a unit count for a conservation subdivision.

Mr. Stolman read through his memorandum of review comments based on the submitted plan. At this time the application is incomplete from a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) basis; an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) has not been submitted and is required based on the property’s environmental characteristics and number of units proposed. Once an EAF has been submitted to the Planning Board and they are satisfied with the content of Part 1, including an accurate listing of involved agencies, they would be in a position to authorize the distribution of a Designation of Lead Agency letter declaring the Board’s intent to serve as Lead Agency with respect to environmental review of the project. Future plan submissions should be not be at a scale of 1” = 200 ft. due to the size of the property. Details on the submitted plans are too small to be readable, making plan review difficult. If a conservation subdivision is intended, a theoretically approvable conventional plan must be submitted as outlined in Section 223-12.J(3)(b)(1) of the City’s zoning law. Mr. Stolman explained the submitted plan does not provide dimensions, sizes building envelopes, home sites, driveways, proposed grading, etc., and proposed roadways do not bear dimensions or grading. The list, he explained, is indicative of the most basic items needed for review however the level of information should be weighed out to make a suitable determination. He felt the applicant’s approach was good and they are on the right track but more information on a larger scale is needed.

Mr. Tully reported his review repeats several comments outlined by Mr. Stolman. Wetlands rock outcrops should be indicated on the plan because they may create site constraints that need to be addressed as part of a conventional plan. Property ownership should be clearly indicated in the vicinity of Mountain Avenue which is proposed to be an access point into the development. Water supply and sewer service information is needed. Drainage must be demonstrated to show that the lots presented can actually be built. The plan also shows activity within the wetland or wetland buffer areas, as well as within the steep slope areas. Some level of approval from agencies, particularly whether the lands are listed as state or federal wetlands is needed, as well as proof that those permitting agencies would authorize this work to occur. Mr. Tully explained that with this amount of disturbance to the wetlands/wetland buffer areas, it is significant to determine if the DEC would actually issue a permit for that disturbance. The applicant will return with more detail for review.

ITEM NO. 11 CONTINUE PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR

SUBDIVISION, 6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PAGGI, MARTIN &

DELBENE, LLP, (PROPERTY OWNED BY BEACON TERMINAL

ASSOCIATES), 989 WOLCOTT AVENUE

Ernst Martin of Paggi, Martin & DelBene, provided two new conceptual layouts in response to comments generated from the last meeting. The biggest change was a reduction from six to five lots.

Concept #3 depicts an 80 ft. diameter cul-de-sac with access extending from Iris Circle. Lots #2 and #3 are accessed from the existing drive off Wolcott Avenue; Lots #4 and #5 gain access from the cul-de-sac; and Lot #1 gains access from a new driveway from Wolcott Avenue.

Concept #4 provides Lots #4 and #5 with a common driveway extending from Iris Circle; Lots #2 and #3 are accessed from the existing drive off Wolcott Avenue; and Lot #1 gains access from a new driveway from Wolcott Avenue.

After reviewing and debating each concept, members felt Concept #4 provided a better layout. Mr. Tully had concern about obtaining appropriate site distance for the existing driveway and suggested an alternative: create a private road, in the area of the cul-de-sac, to serve all four lots (Lots #2, #3, #4 and #5) and eliminate the existing driveway on Wolcott Avenue. Consideration should be given to Lot #1 which is located in the rear yards of houses along Jordan Road. There was not an immediate solution but it was noted that it decreases privacy of seven existing homes and does not provide privacy for the new house. Generally, a private road concept was supported and concerns remained with Lot #1 and the lack of privacy it presents. The applicant will return with a formal application and subdivision plan.

ITEM NO. 12 CONTINUE PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR

SUBDIVISION, 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PAGGI, MARTIN &

DELBENE, LLP, 97 VERPLANCK AVENUE

Ernst Martin of Paggi, Martin & DelBene, presented a revised plan for a two lot subdivision at 97 Verplanck Avenue. The 15,523 sq. ft. parcel will be divided into two lots of 7,675 sq. ft. and 7,678 sq. ft. Both houses will face Verplanck Avenue and be served with a common driveway off Melio Bettina Place. A 25 ft. wide access and utility easement for Lot #1 will be provided over Lot #2. Each will be served with municipal water and sewer. Mr. Stolman advised the applicant to provide a back-up area for the westernmost lot. After reviewing the proposal, the applicant was advised to return with a formal application.

ITEM NO. 13 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL,

COFFEE HOUSE, SUBMITTED BY EB BEACON, LLC, 453 MAIN STREET

Aryeh Siegel presented the proposed Site Plan for a coffee house at 453 Main Street. This is a change of use from retail/residential therefore requires Site Plan Approval. Mr. Siegel reviewed the parking requirements and based on a comparison of the building’s use in 1964, no additional off-street parking is required. Mr. Stolman explained the application is straightforward and additional off-street parking is not required if the use is not 25% greater than the use established in 1964. He noted a Certificate of Appropriateness is required because the building is located in the Historical Overlay Landmark zone. A depiction of the rear elevation is also required because it is visible from the street. When asked about the trash enclosure, Mr. Siegel explained it will be tucked under the rear stairway.

There were no further comments and Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of September, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 14 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BED &

BREAKFAST FACILITY, SUBMITTED BY BARBARA WALLING, 829

WOLCOTT AVENUE

Architect Jeff Wilkinson, representing Barbara Walling, described her proposal to create a four guest room Bed & Breakfast facility at 829 Wolcott Avenue. He presented photos of the house which was built sometime around 1915. The application requires four parking spaces for the guest rooms and two spaces for the owner/occupant. The owners will live on the third floor and guest rooms will be located on the second floor. The circular driveway will be redone with Uniblock pavers. A sketch of the proposed sign to be located in the front of the building was presented for review. The rear parking area will be of crushed stone and screened from adjacent properties with cedar fencing. There is an existing tree line, in-ground pool and terrace. Only one tree (Japanese Maple) located to the right of the house needs to be removed because there is no other way to reconfigure access to the parking area. A screened garbage receptacle area will be provided. Mr. Wilkinson explained the house and existing floor plan lends itself to this type of conversion. The house does not have a sprinkler system, nor is a fire escape required, as long as guests do not occupy the third floor. The third floor occupancy was established prior to zoning requirements.

Mr. Stolman asked that sign details, i.e. color, type faces and materials, be provided on the plan. Specific information on outdoor lighting, including wattages, is needed. A location map should be added to the main drawing; and a floor plan must be provided to verify bedroom count. The EAF should mention the project – an oversight in filling out application paperwork. Although there are no changes to the elevations proposed, Mr. Stolman asked that the existing elevations be memorialized with respect to colors, materials, etc. Also, a note should be added to clarify that lodging stays will not exceed the two week maximum limit. The plan must show that sign lighting will be shielded from adjacent properties. Mr. Tully asked that grading and drainage information for the proposed parking lot be provided; it can be gravel but consideration should be given to providing some type of handicap access.

There were no further comments and Mr. Williams made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of September, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 15 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ARTIST

LIVE/WORK SPACE, SUBMITTED BY TALLIX COMMERCIAL

CONDOMINIUM, LLC, 310 FISHKILL AVENUE

Matt Rudikoff described the proposal to create seven Artist Live/Work spaces, in conjunction with the adjacent Max Protetch project, in Buildings #2 and #3 on the site. The use is permitted via Special Use Permit in the HI zoning district. As part of the application, Building #1 is proposed to be changed from storage space into a 1,500 sq. ft. café and 6,000 sq. ft. gallery space.

The proposed action requires a total of 159 off-street parking spaces, which includes the Protetch House. Currently the site has approximately 141 spaces and the plan shows an additional 18 spaces can be constructed on site. Since the varied site uses will operate at different hours, Mr. Rudikoff requested the Planning Board consider waiving the requirement to construct those spaces at this time. Mr. Stolman that only 10%, or in this case only 15, of the required off-street parking spaces can be waived as long as the applicant can demonstrate the ability and capacity to construct them. Surveyor Peter Hustis explained they can demonstrate the required parking, but are trying to keep it simple because additional spaces will only be used during special events. Mr. Dexter explained new parking regulations allow the Planning Board to waive up to 50% of the initial construction of those parking spaces if the situation is appropriate. Mr. Rudikoff explained they will be requesting a waiver with the next submission. Mr. Stolman reported the new parking requirement for art gallery/exhibit space is one parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area, therefore 24 spaces would be required. The parking requirement for a coffee house (café) is one space per three seats, or one space for each 150 sq. ft. of gross floor area, excluding the kitchen or storage area, whichever is greater. Mr. Stolman explained a floor plan is needed to verify the number of required parking spaces based on the aforementioned regulations. Elevations for both buildings, including colors and materials are also needed. Mr. Stolman also advised the applicant to revise the name on the plan appropriately from “Site Plan” to “Special Use Permit”.

There were no further comments and Mr. Williams made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of September, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Miscellaneous Business

The Martin Luther King Cultural Center requested approval to create a billboard and mural on a building location not yet determined. No one attended the meeting and no further information was available therefore the proposal was not discussed.

Architectural Review

Certificates of Appropriateness: 129-135 Main Street – Façade

Members reviewed proposed colors and materials for the building façade at 129-135 Main Street. After reviewing the proposal, Ms. Attaway made a motion to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the building façade, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Certificates of Appropriateness: 129-135 Main Street – Façade

Members reviewed proposed colors and materials for the building façade at 469 Main Street. After reviewing the proposal, Ms. Attaway made a motion to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the building façade, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

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