Beacon City Planning Board

September 13, 2005

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. A workshop took place at 7:00 p.m. and the regular meeting commenced at 7:05 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs; Members Spring Attaway and Jay Sheers; Alternate Member John Gunn; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; City Engineer Art Tully; City Planner David Stolman; and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Members Vince Arquilla, Ed Sablinski, Tony Lassiter and Randall Williams, and Alternate Member Anne Rapalje were absent.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the August 9, 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 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

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

542-544 MAIN STREET

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

September 7, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for a Special Use Permit, retail residential use, 544 Main Street, LLC, located at 542-544 Main Street, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 6055, Block 81, Lot 575041.

Ayreh Siegal, representing owner Stacy Shurgin, presented her proposal to renovate the building at 544 Main Street, located on the corner of Verplanck Avenue. The building will be renovated and expanded to consist of 14 apartments, three commercial units on the ground level and a parking area to the rear. The Zoning Board of Appeals previously granted variances for parking and density. The rear parking area overlaps the municipal lot therefore an understanding between the City and owner has been agreed upon. Ms. Shurgin reported the formal agreement for a cross easement is being drafted.

Mr. Stolman had no comments and Mr. Tully reported his comments can be fulfilled after the Special Use Permit application is referred to the City Council.

Dennis Pavelock, Judson Street, supported the project and felt it would be good for the City of Beacon. The project fits into the overall design of Main Street.

Michael Benzer, owner of properties on Main Street and Maple Street, noted Ms. Shurgin is a top notch developer as evidenced by the building renovation at 518 Main Street and supported the proposal.

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

Mr. Gunn made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a Special Use Permit for the project subject to the applicant returning to the Planning Board for final site plan approval, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION PUBLIC HEARING

RELATIVE TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)

FOR LONG DOCK BEACON, AS SUBMITTED BY THE SCENIC HUDSON AND

TRUST, INC. AND FOSS GROUP BEACON, LLC

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Long Dock Beacon, property located on Red Flynn Drive, identified on City of Beacon tax maps as Section 5954, Block 32, Lot 488825; Section 5954, Block 32, Lot 481822; and Section 5954, Block 41, Lot 537725; and Town of Fishkill tax maps as Section 5954, Block 00, Lot 424816 and Section 5954, Block 00, Lot 472672.

Steve Rosenberg, Executive Director of Scenic Hudson Land Trust, introduced the project team involved with the development of waterfront property known as “Long Dock Beacon”. Margorie Groten, Scenic Hudson Project Manager, and Ned Foss, Matt Rudikoff and Larry Linder of the Foss Group Beacon, LLC were in attendance. Mr. Rosenberg explained Scenic Hudson was originally involved in the project to help reconnect the people in Beacon with the Hudson River. The public was involved and community outreach took place to create the first vision for use of the site. This plan reflects input received at open meetings and design workshops, from local officials and the advisory committee formed specifically for this project. Mr. Rosenberg said they believe this represents the maximum overlap between the community’s vision and goals for the waterfront, as well as Scenic Hudson’s mission. Most importantly, the site is very public and very much a part of Beacon. The Foss Group Beacon will be developing a scheme that is reflective of what the public would like to see on a waterfront. The project compliments many other exciting things happening in the City of Beacon, i.e. Main Street revival, the Rivers & Estuaries Center, and the Ferry.

Larry Linder reviewed the pamphlet handed out to members of the public which provided an executive summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and an illustration of the proposed site layout. The hotel and commercial area is located in a long building positioned on the north side of the site to condense commercial activity and combine it with harbor activity. This was done to maximize the amount of land remaining for the park area. Activities on the site are all publicly accessible. The existing red barn slated for a boat building program is accessed over city property however the plan will evolve as the project progresses. The commercial area includes a 140 room hotel, two restaurants, a small spa and seasonal take-out food facilities. Mr. Linder explained their goal is to make the most environmentally sensitive green hotel in the country. The building is oriented for the best solar intake and to obtain the best river view while minimizing the visual impact of the development. Other environmental aspects include a geothermal system, a green vegetative roof and use of recyclable materials. The hotel will be committed to operating in a green healthy manner.

Ms. Groten explained there will be two pedestrian entrances – one to the south side onto a public porch and one along the main drive on the boardwalk leading to the civic plaza. The site will be served with picnic areas, a red barn boat building project, a man-made canal, a handicap accessible fishing pier, boating area, pedestrian trails, a lawn area and areas of tall meadow grass. The wetlands that are in poor condition will be restored. The trail will connect to the new Beacon Riverside Trail and eventually to Madam Brett Park. Overall there will be many areas for the public to enjoy, with a take out food area and public bathrooms.

Mr. Rudikoff explained that after the public comment session, the City and its consultants will combine public input with their own comments. This information will be provided to the applicant who will provide responses in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The process with then move forward to the City Council for Special Use Permit review and to the Planning Board for site plan and subdivision review.

Mr. Stolman reported there is a 45-day time frame for the applicant to create the Final Environmental Impact Statement however the SEQR process allows that time frame to be exceeded if necessary. The Planning Board as Lead Agency must be sure the applicant’s responses to all comments are complete. Once the public hearing is closed, a 14-day period to allow submission of written comments which ends on September 27^th.

Carmine Serino, 27 Prospect Street, asked if maintenance and upkeep of the park area will be the City’s responsibility because additional staffing may be needed.

Dennis Pavelock, Judson Street, had concern that the boat club that has been in existence for many years will not be present when the project is complete. He suggested members of the boat club be provided with a meeting place somewhere on the site. Mr. Pavelock valued the applicant’s decision to include boat slips in the overall design, however felt boat club members should have a facility to keep history going. He asked how the riverfront will be reinvented after the initial tourist attraction diminishes. Lastly, he pointed out that the new ferry dock has an open gate with no lock and children can easily fall into the river.

Ann Cypher, 816 Wolcott Avenue, asked that the parking proposal and actual number of spaces be presented and represented on public handout information.

Kate Dayton, 3 Short Street, Cold Spring, New York, has been aware of this project’s development for four years. She supports the proposal and the promotion of a “green” project, in conjunction with other sustainable practices that have occurred during Beacon’s rejuvenation. She said the hotel will have a very big overhead therefore hoped the failures of others had been researched and studied. Ms. Dayton commended the applicant on only developing 8 acres of a 20-plus acre site and making the prime location open to the public.

Mayor Clara Lou Gould, 7 Wodenethe Drive, complemented Scenic Hudson for the time spent on obtaining input from the public. Initially the proposal was only to provide a park setting, however the advisory committee understood that Beacon has many parks and recognized the need for a working riverfront. The Mayor expressed her excitement over the hotel and the benefits it will bring to Beacon.

Ann Meagher, President of the Greater Southern Dutchess Chamber of Commerce, also commended Scenic Hudson on behalf of the community. She supported the project on behalf of the 1,000 members of the Chamber and looked forward to see the project come to fruition.

Steven Evans, 97 Maple Street, Assistant Director of the Dia Foundation and manager of the Dia:Beacon museum reported Dia supports the project and they feel it is a positive move for the community in many ways. Scenic Hudson has a great track record for doing responsible projects and enriching community. The museum needs a hotel nearby and the project will be wonderful for the community.

Flora Jones, 36 Melio Bettina Place, felt Scenic Hudson has become more inclusive and appreciated their involvement as environmentalists. She supported the hotel and the overall project. Ms. Jones expressed her hope that Scenic Hudson continue to monitor and evaluate the project because changes may need to be made as the planning process progresses.

Jennifer Mackiewicz, 9 Falconer Street, on behalf of the Beacon Arts Community Association (BACA), said board members officially support the project. They feel it is a great plan for the City of Beacon and community.

Tim Joseph, Chief of the City’s Fire Department, said the Beacon Fire Department has no way of protecting the waterfront in the manner it is presented. He had a long conversation with Mr. Rudikoff who provided a written response to his concerns. Mr. Rudikoff’s correspondence indicated the applicant doesn’t feel it is their responsibility to supply a fire boat and/or a boat house. They believe it is the City of Beacon’s responsibility. Chief Joseph commended them for spending millions of dollars on environmental matters but they are not supplying financial support for public protection.

Mr. Gunn commended the applicant for taking on a Leed-Gold (Leadership in Environmental Education and Design) status for the project.

Dennis Pavelock, Judson Street, asked how many long-term permanent, part-time jobs will be created by the project. Mr. Hibbs explained that question is addressed in the DEIS.

There were no further comments and Ms. Attaway made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The comment period will remain open until September 27, 2005.

ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, 64 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS, SUBMITTED BY BEACON

COMMUNITY FOUNDATION (ST. FRANCIS PROPERTY), CONKLIN

STREET

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing relative to an application for a Special Use Permit, for a senior housing facility, submitted by Beacon Community Foundation, property located off Delavan Avenue and Conklin Street, identified on City tax maps as Section 6055, Block 03, Lot 331123.

Attorney Dan Leary, of Cuddy & Feder, representing the Beacon Community Foundation, presented their proposal for a senior housing facility on an 8.5 acre parcel adjoining St. Francis Hospital off Delavan Avenue. Two buildings will have 32 apartments in each for a total of 64 units. The site will be accessed over the existing entrance into the St. Francis complex with emergency access off Conklin Street. The project complies with the RD-5 zoning district and meets off-street parking requirements. A variance was granted in June of 2004 to permit 37 units in each building however the revised proposal is well below the original. Mr. Leary introduced architect Mike McCormack of Liscum, McCormack & VanVoorhis and engineer Peter Karis of Insite Engineering to discuss technical aspects of the project.

Mr. Karis explained the 8.5 acre parcel has legal frontage on Conklin Street where the emergency access is provided, with the main access from St. Francis property off Delavan. Parking is provided in front of the two buildings which are provided with a central courtyard between. An emergency and large vehicle turn area is provided to the south of the easternmost building. The site is provided with a small maintenance garage to house equipment to support the facility. All stormwater management drains west to a stormwater management basin located on both this parcel and St. Francis property away from the Conklin Street neighborhood. An appropriate vegetative buffer will be maintained between the residences on Conklin Street and the site. The nearest residence is approximately 200 ft. from nearest building. Low impact lighting is provided to minimize disturbance and efforts have been made to limit site disturbance.

Mr. McCormack described the architecture of the buildings that will be three stories in the front and two stories in the rear, consisting of brick and clapboard siding, balconies, sloped roof, gable and hip with a cupola in the center. Mr. McCormack explained that for the most part the architecture evokes a residential look so senior occupants have a feeling of home, a neighborhood and the community of Beacon.

Mike Coulter, 15 DeSoto Avenue, attended the Zoning Board meeting in 2004 to question the affect this project would have on the wetlands located directly behind his property. He had no objection to the project however Zoning Board members referred residents to attend the Planning Board meeting to address environmental concerns. Mr. Coulter reported markers located on the property appear to delineate the wetland areas. He noted that Conklin Street is quite narrow near the emergency access and the situation is compounded by Healey employees who park along the two-way street. Mr. Coulter had concern that an emergency vehicle or fire truck would have difficulty passing. Also, a new house near the emergency access will add to the congested area. Mr. Coulter reported neighbors did not receive public hearing notices and those that were sent out did not have a drawing attached. The neighbors have concerns about lighting and an adequate buffer zone. They felt some type of fencing, not just vegetation, should offset the neighborhood.

Anne Cypher, 816 Wolcott Avenue, asked if the Beacon Community Foundation was part of St. Francis Hospital. She asked if they would be paying taxes and city utilities, and if they were a non-profit agency. Ms. Cypher cited concerns for the wetlands and asked if an environmental impact statement had been prepared. Mr. Stolman reported a Long Environmental Assessment Form was submitted and wetlands on the property were flagged and identified on the plan. Attorney Dan Leary reported the Beacon Community Foundation is a separate entity not affiliated with St. Francis. He felt the issue of taxable status was not an appropriate topic for Planning Board discussion, but reported the City Assessor determines taxable status. Mr. Hibbs recommended that issue be brought up at the City Council’s public hearing as well.

Mike Laneri, 81 Delavan Avenue, felt the Planning Board should recommend the City Council grant the Special Use Permit as submitted because the City needs more senior housing. However, he questioned the effectiveness of traffic control measures at Delavan Avenue and Fishkill Avenue. Other activities in the area should be considered as well, i.e. Healey Chevrolet maintenance facility, Wingate, St. Francis Hospital which has been reborn into a new use, and the vacant parcel behind this property. Mr. Laneri felt the traffic situation is advancing faster then planning. He reported that it is difficult to turn left from Delavan Avenue during rush area now, and this will add to the difficult traffic situation particularly with senior citizens trying to navigate the intersection. Mr. Laneri suggested they consider a short term correction as well as a long term solution. He felt a traffic study should be done to determine whether a traffic control device is needed. He suggested a short term solution would be to remove a few trees and large bush that obstruct the view of oncoming traffic. Additionally, the wide driveway coming out of the Healey building provides many areas of exit which could be funneled more appropriately. Mr. Laneri felt the City Council should review the situation as well as consult the Traffic Safety Committee. He reiterated his support of the project.

Dennis Pavelock, Judson Street, expressed concern for taxes because he feels Beacon has been robbed by non-profits for many years. He asked if the apartments will be fixed rates and whether it will become a “transient” facility. Mr. Pavelock asked for assurance that all affected residents be appropriately notified.

Mr. Stolman explained the City Council has the approving authority and issues SEQRA determinations with regard to Special Use Permit applications. Once they have acted, the application will then return to the Planning Board for final site plan approval. He suggested that prior to the City Council issuing a Special Use Permit a traffic study of Delavan Avenue and Fishkill Avenue be reviewed to determine whether a traffic control device is warranted. Although minimum parking standards are met, Mr. Stolman suggested they revisit the parking area to determine whether 80 spaces will be realistically adequate. This senior citizen housing project by law is not exclusive to those 55 and older.

Mr. Tully provided a copy of his written comments to the applicant that included remarks about the wetlands and other comments of public concern. Board members expressed concern about traffic and emergency access and requested a traffic survey.

Anne Cypher, 816 Wolcott Avenue, asked for the size of the apartments and how many cars per unit are expected. Mr. McCormack explained the apartments are mostly one-bedroom or one-bedroom (with a study) ranging from 700 to 900 sq. ft. in size. He explained senior housing is typically occupied by “snow birds” who only own one vehicle. These apartments are aimed at people who are downsizing from a large house to an apartment. They usually downscale in many ways, including vehicles. Ms. Cypher felt many people age 55 and older still own two vehicles and continue to work.

Attorney Dan Leary explained they have agreed that residents will be exclusively 55 and older. Although federal law is more relaxed they have made that concession.

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

After some discussion, Ms. Attaway made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a Special Use Permit subject to submission and review of a traffic study of Delavan Avenue and Fishkill Avenue to determine if a traffic control device is warranted; revisiting the parking area and return to the Planning Board for final site plan review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Stolman asked the applicant to provide an area on the plan where additional parking can be created in the future if needed.

ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN

APPROVAL, COFFEE HOUSE, SUBMITTED BY EB BEACON, LLC, 453

MAIN STREET

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing for a coffee house, submitted by EB Beacon, LLC, property located at 453 Main Street, identified on City tax maps as Section 6054, Block 37, Lot 061750.

Aryeh Siegel, representing EB Beacon, LLC, described their proposal to relocate the Cthonic Clash coffee house to 453 Main Street. Site Plan Approval is required to change the building’s street level use from retail space to a coffee house. The two apartments on the second floor will be made into one large apartment. Based on 1964 parking regulations, no additional off-street parking is required for this proposal.

Dennis Pavelock, Judson Street, asked where the building is specifically located and was informed that it is on the other side of the street near Joe’s Irish Pub.

Walter Castle, 17 North Street, supported the application to relocate the coffee house. He feels the business is an asset to the community because it provides a place for people to gather and offers local employment.

Mr. Stolman and Mr. Tully had no outstanding comments on the Site Plan submission. There were no further comments and Mr. Gunn made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Attaway.

Mr. Sheers made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration, grant Site Plan Approval and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the building at 453 Main Street, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 5 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, BED & BREAKFAST FACILITY, SUBMITTED BY BARBARA

WALLING, 829 WOLCOTT AVENUE

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing relative to an application for a Special Use Permit, to create a Bed & Breakfast facility, submitted by Barbara Walling, 829 Wolcott Avenue, identified on City tax maps as Section 6054,

Block 46, Lot 154511.

Jeff Wilkinson, representing Barbara Walling, described the proposal to convert the existing single family house at 829 Wolcott Avenue into a four guestroom Bed & Breakfast facility. The amended Site Plan included a floor plan and photographs of the existing house as requested. The building façade will not change from its current Colonial Revival appearance, the existing flavor of the landscape will be maintained, the environmental assessment form was corrected, grading notes were added and a cut sheet of lighting and signage were provided. The two-week maximum stay period was listed on the plan as requested.

Mr. Stolman asked that lighting details, including wattage, and signage details be added to the drawing. Mr. Tully noted the wood frame garage located on the property is referenced as “Phase 2” of the project. He advised that the note and every reference to it in application documents be removed if it is not part of this application. Mr. Wilkinson explained that they may convert it into an accessory use sometime in the future but that there are no specific plans at this time. He will take any and all references to “Phase 2” from the application form and Site Plan. Mr. Tully advised him to consider its future use in that design could be done now to accommodate site development in the future, i.e. parking, utilities, etc.

Kelly Johnson, 820 Wolcott Avenue, asked what rates would be charged for overnight stays, and if meals would be served to guests only. Ms. Walling explained they would only serve breakfast to boarders and anticipated rates are $120-220 per room including breakfast. Ms. Johnson expressed concern for additional traffic and truck deliveries. She explained the state is currently reconstructing Route 9D and she already has anxiety for her children’s safety. Ms. Walling explained they will reside on the third floor and the west side of the property provides adequate off-street parking. They will not hire additional staff or have unusual deliveries. Ms. Johnson had concern that the facility could eventually lodge transient people. Mr. Wilkinson explained they do not anticipate a problem because they will be charging higher-end fees and visits are limited to two-weeks.

Anne Cypher, 816 Wolcott Avenue, asked why eight parking spaces are needed when only four guest rooms are planned. Mr. Wilkinson explained six off-street spaces are required and eight parking spaces are provided and will be appropriately screened. Ms. Cypher objected to the proposal because it would detract from the residential flavor of the neighborhood and create additional traffic.

Dennis Pavelock, Judson Street, asked if any other overnight accommodations in Beacon exist because he spoke in favor of another Bed & Breakfast facility. He supported the application as long as resident concerns are addressed and all required criteria are met.

Wendy Brown, 120 Spring Valley Street, asked if they planned to hire any staff. Ms. Walling explained they hire someone for landscape maintenance now but have no plans to hire anyone else at this time.

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

Mr. Gunn made a motion to recommend the City Council grant the Special Use Permit as requested, subject to removal of any and all references to Phase 2, and that they return for final site plan approval. The motion was seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT (AMENDMENT), ARTIST LIVE/WORK SPACE, SUBMITTED BY

TALLIX COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM, LLC, 310 FISHKILL AVENUE

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice and opened the public hearing, relative to an application for a Special Use Permit, to renovate an existing building to create Artist Live/Work spaces on the Tallix site, submitted by Tallix Condominium, LLC, property located at 310 Fishkill Avenue, identified on City tax maps as Section 6054, Block 22,

Lot 203888.

Planning consultant Matthew Rudikoff described his client’s proposal to create seven artist live/work spaces in Buildings #2 and #3 on the Tallix site; and to convert a portion of a storage building into café space. Off-street parking requirements, calculations and spaces were clarified as requested. Areas for additional parking spaces were indicated on the plan if needed beyond the existing 141 spaces. Mr. Rudikoff explained the applicant believes parking is adequate based upon the ability to share spaces with day and night uses on site. The plan reflects that each unit will have individual heating systems and signage indicating the artists’ name.

Mr. Stolman reported the plan indicates Site Plan Approval where a Special Use Permit is required. The plan lists a total of 175 off-street parking spaces are required, 141 spaces provided and 34 potential spaces for future use if needed, however only 18 potential spaces are actually shown. After much discussion, Mr. Stolman explained the plan must demonstrate that a total of 175 parking spaces can be created.

Mr. Tully asked that the Site Plan clearly differentiate where concrete curbing and cobblestone edging will be used on site. Secondly, the area west of Building #1 shows an area of asphalt paving and concrete cobblestones but the intended use is not clear. If it is to be used as a pedestrian entryway it should be labeled as such.

Michael Huxta, 592 Main Street, asked to see a comparison between what the site looks like now and what it will look like in the future. Mr. Rudikoff explained the building foot print will not change but each unit will have its own door and signage. Mr. Huxta explained he lives near the gate off Main Street and at one time Tallix locked the gate daily. Now the gate is open and cars cut through the site from Main Street to Fishkill Avenue. Twice someone nearly clipped his car door while he exiting his vehicle. He requested a safety measure be added to protect children that live in the area.

The Max Protetch site plan called for a gate or barrier however it was unclear what exactly was required. Discussion took place regarding whether the property was City owned, or precisely where the property line ended. Tallix owner Lee Balter said before Max Protetch purchased the property, they kept the gate closed to prevent through traffic.

George Mansfield, 5 Churchill Street, supported the application and felt the renovation would make great use of a former industrial building. He reported there is a strong demand for this type of development and, as an artist, knows many people that would like to begin a business here. Mr. Mansfield hoped the project would set a precedent for future developers.

Sara Pasti, 57 Fulton Avenue, spoke unofficially on behalf of the arts community. She feels people are excited about the artist live/work alternative and generally supported the project.

Much discussion took place regarding the barrier off Main Street and a review of the previously approved Site Plan will take place. Ultimately a resolution must be reached, i.e. speed bumps, a gate or signage, and the areas of private and public property must be distinguished. After a great deal of debate about a solution to protect safety of those in and around the site, Mr. Sheers made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Sheers made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a Special Use Permit for the project subject to resolving the issues regarding through traffic and the applicant returning to the Planning Board for final site plan approval, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 7 CONTINUE REVIEW ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, ACCESSORY APARTMENT, 47 SOUTH AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY

JOHN GUNN

Due to a lack of Planning Board members in attendance, Mr. Gunn’s application could not be heard. Mr. Gunn explained this is the second time his application has been postponed for lack of attending members and every delay costs him more money. He feels somewhat punished for being an alternate member of the Planning Board. City Attorney Pisanelli reviewed information regarding property ownership that was questioned at a previous meeting. Based on his review, it is clear that Mr. Gunn owns the property in question based on the right-of-way information referenced in the 1884 deed. Mr. Tully and Mr. Stolman explained their comments have been addressed. Discussion took place regarding a solution to expand the number of Planning Board members or to increase attendance of those appointed.

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

Engineer Charlie Brown reported his client’s application was referred to the City Council and a Special Use Permit for a day school was granted, subject to returning to the Planning Board for final site plan approval. Technical comments received from Mr. Tully’s office are being finalized and the easement agreement was executed as required.

Mr. Stolman explained a lighting fixture is noted to be mounted on an 8 ft. pole however the pole actually shown is 12 ft. The type of bulb to be used must be listed and some type of shield provided so light doesn’t splay off the site. Mr. Brown reported the lighting will be mounted on 8 ft. poles and will be shielded from adjacent property as required. Proposed signage details, in terms of location and size, must be added to the plan. Mr. Stolman said the floor plan still reflects two classrooms listed as #5 and should be appropriately numbered. Mr. Dexter made note that a Certificate of Appropriateness is required since the property is located in the historical overlay district.

Mr. Gunn made a motion to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the presented elevations and grant final site plan approval subject to consultant comments listed above, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 9 CONTINUE REVIEW ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,

TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY ARNOLD RESTIVO, RALPH

STREET

Eugene Ninnie of Civil Technologies representing Arnold Restivo, explained the last remaining issue with regard to this two lot subdivision is achieving appropriate sight distance. As recommended by Mr. Stolman, the applicant went to the Traffic Safety Committee to see if they would recommend limiting on-street parking near the driveway in order to improve the sight distance. The Traffic Safety Committee reviewed the request and did not recommend restricting parking because it may set a precedent for similar streets throughout Beacon. Mr. Stolman explained the City’s subdivision regulations address driveway intersections and require the same sight distance as a roadway intersection. He provided a copy of New York State Department of Transportation Policy and Standards for the Design of Entrances to State Highways, and ASHTO’s (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for review. The requirements were reviewed, and speed limits and site restrictions were discussed at length. In order to resolve the issue, Mr. Stolman advised the applicant’s engineer to meet on site with a traffic engineer from his office in order to come to a final conclusion. Mr. Ninnie asked if they could demonstrate pre-existing conditions on the street warrant a speed reduction for safety. Discussion also took place regarding other lots on the street have the same sight distances. Mr. Dexter explained his understanding that all streets in the City are 30 m.p.h. unless otherwise posted, i.e. in school zones. City Attorney Pisanelli said Home Rule legislation from the state is required in order to reduce the City speed limit. On other points, Mr. Stolman suggested the easement at the end of the common driveway be increased, the turning template onto the street be removed, and the plan show that the fence has been removed.

REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BAR/RESIDENTIAL

USE (CHANGE OF USE FROM PRIVATE CLUB), SUBMITTED BY BEACON

TERMINAL ASSOCIATES, 217 MAIN STREET

Aryeh Siegel described the proposed change of use from a private club to residential/bar establishment for the building located at 217 Main Street. The lower level will be a bar establishment with a studio apartment in the rear; the second floor will be two apartments. There was no specific listing for parking requirements in the 1964 zoning code for private clubs which was the building’s use as listed in the City directory. Since the new use is less than 25% greater intensity than that in 1964, no additional off-street parking is required.

Mr. Stolman asked that more detail with respect to parking calculations be provided. Additionally, too often site plans do not include proposed signage and in order to save time and money, a generic type sign should be provided so tenants need not return to the Planning Board for approval. Generic details including letter style, size and location could be provided.

No parking is shown to the rear of the building and although no additional off-street parking is required, some definition as to what will be taking place there should be provided. Mr. Tully expressed concern that the rear space is utilized now yet the plan does not show any activity. Lot #1 has a right-of-way over this parcel therefore the area cannot be blocked. Mr. Dexter felt that at least the bartender, owner or cook would park in the rear, therefore some type of indication must be considered. Mr. Tully had concern for plowing in the winter, nuisance to neighbors and aesthetics to adjacent properties due to the narrowness and proximity of the driveway access. He questioned trash pick up and Mr. Siegel explained the wheeled cans will be hauled down the drive to DeWindt Street. Mr. Stolman asked that a copy of the survey be provided when available – not only with this application but others in the future.

Mr. Dexter questioned the 1964 use listed on the plan. He recalled the building was used for public assembly on the second floor and retail on the first floor. The building’s last use was an illegal social club. He asked Mr. Siegel to meet with him to clarify the building’s use in order to appropriately determine the parking schedule. Lastly, this application should be a Special Use Permit due to the addition of a residential component.

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

ITEM NO. 11 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ARTIST

LIVE/WORK SPACE, SUBMITTED BY PETER O’KENNEDY, 3 WATER

STREET

Aryeh Siegel described his client’s proposal to create artist live/work space in an existing garage located at 3 Water Street. The only change to the exterior of the building will be the addition of a deck. The first level will have a living area, kitchen, bathroom and work area. A second floor will be created to house a small storage platform, work area and bedroom. No additional off-street parking is required based on the building’s use as a service business in 1964.

Mr. Stolman asked that dimensions of the various spaces be provided on the plan as

they relate to Section 223.24.3(A)(5). The type of proposed artist work and color of corrugated siding on the building must be provided. There were no further comments and Mr. Sheers made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of October, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 12 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2 RESIDENTIAL

LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PAGGI, MARTIN & DELBENE, LLP, 97 VERPLANCK

AVENUE

Ernst Martin, of Paggi, Martin & DelBene, presented the plan for a two lot subdivision of property located at the corner of Verplanck Avenue and Melio Bettina Place. Mr. Stolman asked that a survey of the property, as well as bearings and dimensions on lot lines be provided. He explained the bulk data table was incorrect for the building setbacks. Mr. Stolman asked that the easement for Lot #1 that runs over Lot #2 should be shown on the plat and that a legal easement be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney.

Mr. Tully provided Mr. Ernst with a copy of his engineering comments for review. He asked that a construction phasing plan be provided to assure the project will be properly coordinated. Mr. Tully recommended that the drain line for Lot #1, proposed to run behind the sidewalk and tied directly into the catch basin on Verplanck Avenue, be moved to run through the easement on Lot #2. As currently shown, the installation of the drain line could damage the new sidewalk along Verplanck Avenue. Additionally, footing drains appear to be below the catch basin rim therefore they should be raised in elevation. A sight easement should be provided on the northeast corner of proposed Lot #2 in accordance with Section 195.24(e) of the City’s subdivision regulations.

After further discussion, Mr. Sheers made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of October, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Miscellaneous Business:

1. Architectural Review: Single Family House, Belleford Lane

Members reviewed an elevation drawing of a new single family house on Belleford Lane. This lot is part of the Forman subdivision and deed restrictions provide them with veto power over the design of any new home in the development. The Forman’s approved the proposed design. After some discussion, board members approved the design but suggested the applicant reduce the dormer size.

2. Architectural Review: Single Family House, Prospect Street

Members reviewed an elevation drawing of a new single family house on Prospect

Street. After reviewing and debating the proposed design, members agreed that the house appeared to be too dissimilar to homes on either side of the subject parcel.

3. Beacon Plaza, Eliza Street – Ron Piccone Proposal

Ron Piccone submitted a proposal to enclose the former bank drive-in window located in the Eliza Street parking lot. The structure would be made to mimic the building’s storefronts and be used as a storage area for existing tenants. Mr. Dexter reported the structure is located on City property and Mr. Piccone has a 99-year lease for it. The structure is no longer in use and is being abused by undesirables in the neighborhood. The City Council must review and approve his proposal but Mr. Piccone wanted the Planning Board on board before going to the City Council.

There was no further business to discuss and Ms. Attaway made a motion to

adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion

carried.