Beacon City Planning Board

December 13, 2005

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The regular meeting commenced at 7:10 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs; Members Spring Attaway, Jay Sheers, Anne Rapalje and John Gunn; Alternate Members Mike Lanari and Elizabeth Strainese; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; City Engineer John Russo (in for Art Tully); City Planner Sarah Brown (in for David Stolman); and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Member Tony Lassiter and Randall Williams were absent.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the

November 8, 2005 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. A motion was made by Ms. Rapalje, seconded by Mr. Sheers to approve the minutes as circulated. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO SITE

PLAN APPROVAL, CENTER FOR COMMUNICATION & LEARNING,

SUBMITTED BY ST. FRANCIS HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION, 60

DELAVAN AVENUE

Ms. Rapalje recused herself from this item because she was a former employee of

St. Francis. Mr. Hibbs announced the notice to continue a public hearing to amend an existing Site Plan Approval for a Center for Communication & Learning on property located at 60 Delavan Avenue, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 6055, Block 03, Lot 268090, was published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on December 7, 2005.

Joan Gambeski and Connie Defris of St. Francis attended the meeting to express their concerns about additional information requested by the Board. Ms. Gambeski explained the project previously received Site Plan Approval however due to the cost of the retaining wall, the building was relocated and an amendment was required. Upon returning to the Board, new concerns over drainage were addressed and all that remained was a traffic study at the intersection of Delavan Avenue and Route 52. Traffic was not a concern during the first application because the project would have generated the same amount as the existing operation. However, an adjacent senior housing project is before the Board therefore all area traffic must be considered. Ms. Gambeski explained the traffic study done for the senior housing facility revealed an additional lane may be required but that a traffic light would be unnecessary. She explained the senior housing project will be generating more traffic, not them. Ms. Gambeski emphasized the importance of closing this project so they can move forward with a much needed new facility.

Mr. Hibbs explained the traffic study submitted Thursday did not show whether data from the Communications Center was included. Although it is not this applicant’s fault, the study was not specific in details. Mr. Hibbs explained although this project was previously approved, the senior housing project surfaced and the Board is bound by SEQRA regulations to consider impacts from both projects.

Ms. Gambeski reported their project is near the senior housing property but there is no connection between them. She added the school does not operate during “peak” hours. Mr. Hibbs explained the intersection has seen more activity than ever envisioned and now either project would require a traffic study. Mr. Russo reported that in the two years since the project was first approved, the City is busier and more populated. Ms. Gambeski said they are a not-for-profit organization trying to stay within a budget and minimize expenses.

Mr. Hibbs advised them to contact the organization who did the traffic study to see if they could provide more detail and ask them to answer questions outlined in the memorandum presented by the City Planner. The public hearing will remain open for the month of January.

ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, TWO-FAMILY DWELLING, SUBMITTED BY LOU AMOROSO,

VAIL AVENUE

Mr. Hibbs announced the notice of public hearing for a Special Use Permit to construct a two-family dwelling on property located at 40 Vail Avenue, identified on City tax maps as Section 6054, Block 46, Lot 210559, was printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal on December 7, 2005.

Lou Amoroso described his proposal to construct a two family house on a parcel off Vail Avenue located behind his house that faces Union Street. The parcel is a legal conforming lot and the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance to permit a two family dwelling in a single family zoning district. Mr. Amoroso explained Mr. Stolman’s comments from last month indicated they park in the existing garage. He made clear that they do not park in the garage because it is too small to fit a present model car and they have always used the driveway off Vail Avenue. Mr. Amoroso explained he removed the narrow concrete pads that once led to the garage and plans to use the existing curb cut on Vail Avenue. He reiterated that although he could, he would rather not put a new driveway off Union Street for the existing house. Mr. Amoroso explained they need a two family house because his daughter is a single parent living in an apartment complex that is deteriorating rapidly and his wife has diabetes. His daughter would live on the second floor and they would live on the first floor. He does not want to deteriorate the neighborhood by making the parcel into a parking lot. With regard to the requirement that parking be 5 ft. from the property line, Mr. Amoroso showed pictures of other projects going on in Beacon that have little or no parking, i.e. the Whitestone, Spring Valley Street and Churchill Street, stating he wants no more than what everyone else has in Beacon. All building setbacks can be met and a much larger dwelling than proposed could be constructed on the lot. Mr. Hibbs explained the Board must enforce off-street parking regulations as outlined in the zoning code and reported all applicants are treated equally. Mr. Amoroso said this will be the only legally approved two family dwelling in the area. Mr. Hibbs explained only the Zoning Board of Appeals Board has the latitude to change zoning rules.

Mr. Russo asked that the plan include sight distance measurements for the driveway, a parking table showing required and proposed number of spaces, and an updated zoning bulk table noting the required lot width is 50 ft. Additionally, the revised plan proposes a diagonal parking area only one foot from the property line and a minimum of 5 ft. is required.

Mr. Amoroso thought he had approval for a two family house and was frustrated that parking is a problem. He intends to live on the property for the remainder of his life as he has invested a great deal of time and money on the premises already. He expressed frustration about the parking and garage use. Although he agreed to make revisions if needed, he thought a two family house would not be held to this level of detail. Mr. Russo explained the garage comment was from last month and everyone now understands that parking does not take place there. Mr. Amoroso said if he sold the house on Union Street tomorrow, the new owner would still have no driveway or parking area. Ultimately, he didn’t want to affect the quality of life in his neighborhood and will review the zoning code and other projects so appropriate comparisons can be made. He highlighted that all other houses in the neighborhood have driveways that force cars to back out into the street and pointed out the two new single family homes on Prospect Street as prime examples. Mr. Russo suggested scheduling a workshop with the City Engineer, City Planner, Mr. Amoroso and the Building Inspector in order to move the project in the right direction. Mr. Amoroso agreed to a meeting but felt it would be best to wait until the beginning of next year when the holiday season is over.

Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street, supported Mr. Amoroso’s endeavor to construct a two family house. He felt that people from out of town have been getting the “red carpet” treatment while lifelong local residents are not. He hoped something could be worked out after the holidays.

There were no further comments from the public, however Mr. Hibbs reported

two residents submitted letters regarding the proposal that will remain on file since changes will be made to the plan. The public hearing will remain open.

ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION (LOT

LINE REALIGNMENT), SUBMITTED BY RAYMOND VACCARO, 14-16

DUTCHESS TERRACE

Mr. Hibbs noted the notice of public hearing for an application relative to a Subdivision of property (lot line realignment) located at 14-16 Dutchess Terrace, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 5955, Block 83, Lot 828032 was published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on Wednesday, December 7, 2005.

Dennis Walden described this lot line alignment will prevent an adverse possession claim. The lot line will be moved so the driveway that was previously installed over the two adjacent parcels will be located all on one property. A variance for the slight reduction in lot size was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals and a letter expressing consent from both owners was submitted.

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

There were no outstanding items from the Board or consultants, and Ms. Attaway made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration for the lot line realignment, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Sheers 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, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 4 CONTINUE REVIEW ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,

TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY ARNOLD RESTIVO, RALPH

STREET

Engineer Eugene Ninnie reported the sight distance issue was resolved after meeting on site and reviewing measurements with a traffic engineer from F.P. Clark’s office. After discussion with Mr. Russo, Mr. Ninnie understood the 25 ft. measurement shown on the plan is unnecessary and will be removed, additionally, the “see Note 1” listed on the proposed residence is irrelevant and must be removed. Ms. Brown advised the turn around area to the rear should be provided with a template to show adequate turning space. Lastly, an access easement for the entire width of the driveway, measured from the property line to a depth of 33 ft. should be provided for the common driveway.

Mr. Hibbs asked that the basement floor and first floor elevations be eliminated as part of the approval so the architectural style of the house does not hinge on a particular design. There were no further comments and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of January, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 5 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, THREE

RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY JOSEPHINE SCADURA, KNEVELS

AVENUE

Dennis Walden presented the proposal for a second phase subdivision of property owned by Josephine Scadura located on the corner of Knevels Avenue and Tioronda Avenue. One lot was previously subdivided off and a new Health Department approved sewer main was installed under the inspection of Lanc & Tully. Ms. Scadura is now seeking approval to subdivide the remainder of property into three lots, retaining the largest lot for herself. Mr. Walden reported she would rather create three private driveways or a common drive rather than construct a private road.

Mr. Russo explained a private road is necessary because a common driveway cannot serve more than two residences under recently passed legislation. Therefore the previously developed private driveway must be upgraded to meet private road standards. Mr. Russo provided a copy of their engineering review comments which included other miscellaneous items.

Mr. Walden referred to a section of law that provides the Planning Board with the ability to modify a portion of the code to allow more than two residences access from a common driveway. Mr. Hibbs read the related section aloud and it essentially allows modification when such action is taken in the public’s interest; this request would only serve the applicant. Additionally, it was noted that a note on the original subdivision approval states, “Lot #1 shall not be further subdivided without creating a private road where the 50 ft. wide driveway easement is shown”. The plan will be revised based on presented comments and the applicant will return for further review.

ITEM NO. 6 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, FIVE

RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY BEACON TERMINAL ASSOCIATES,

989 WOLCOTT AVENUE

Ernst Martin returned with a formal application and subdivision plan for a five acre parcel of land located between Wolcott Avenue and Iris Circle. Alternate layouts were previously reviewed and the submitted plan is a result of those discussions. Two lots would be accessed from Iris Circle, one lot directly from Wolcott Avenue and two remaining lots will be served by a the existing driveway. Lots will be served with City water and sewer services.

Sight distance measurements for the existing driveway must be provided as previously discussed. Mr. Hibbs recalled the Board also supported entry from Iris Circle to avoid sight distance concerns on Wolcott Avenue. Four lots could be connected via a private road and the existing driveway on Wolcott Avenue could be eliminated. Additional concern was raised regarding Lot #1 because the house and driveway will affect the rear yards of five existing houses. The house on Lot #1 could be moved more toward Wolcott Avenue.

After much discussion and debate about the proposed layout and efforts to agree on a layout with the least impact to surrounding properties, Ms. Attaway made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of January, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. The applicant will bring a choice of layouts for consideration and public comment.

Miscellaneous Business:

Building Inspector, Tim Dexter, briefed the Board on the problem his office is experiencing with the architectural review process. He suggested establishing a three member subcommittee that could meet on Tuesday or Wednesday evenings prior to the Planning Board meeting day in order to streamline review. Currently, a set of building plans for a new structure can be reviewed for building code regulations within one week however architectural review takes a month or more. Mr. Dexter offered to meet with the

subcommittee on a chosen night so proposals can be reviewed and process in a timely

manner. After some debate, the Board agreed that Ms. Attaway, Ms. Strainese and Mr. Hibbs would serve as regular members; Ms. Rapalje would serve as an alternate.

Architectural Review

Mountain Lane – Single Family House

Members reviewed a conceptual proposal for a single family house on Mountain Lane. The applicant will provide colors and materials for review if the conceptual design is approved. After some debate, Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the conceptual design subject to adding a porch near the entrance, seconded by Mr. Hibbs. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

12 Aldridge Place – Single Family House

Mr. Dexter presented a photo rendering of a proposed house at the end of the cul de sac on Aldridge Place. Members noted similar style homes are located in the area and after a long discussion decided to adjourn the proceeding until photos of surrounding housing stock can be presented and reviewed.

106 Catherine Street – Single Family House

Members reviewed proposed elevation drawings for a new single family house on Catherine Street. After a lengthy review, members felt the proposed house was too dissimilar in scale and detail. They suggested reducing the height of the building, remove the dividing grills in the windows because surrounding windows are single paned, and remove the window shutters.

41 Cliff Street

Members reviewed proposed modifications to an already approved new single family house to change the direction of stairs. After some debate, members agreed to the change subject to altering the type of lattice under the stair.

Misericordia Estates, Lot #10 – Single Family House

At November’s meeting, members reviewed and approved three proposals for single family houses: the Amherst II style house was approved and is under construction on Lot #3; the Carlisle IV style was approved and is under construction on Lot #12; and the Amherst style home was approved subject to approval of a specific lot location. The applicant proposed placing the Amherst style house on Lot #10 and a new style house, the Amherst III on Lot #6. After a lengthy review of the subdivision layout and a critique of the housing style, members did not approve of either proposal. Overall, they did not approve of the “garage snout” design reflected in the proposals. Lennar representatives explained that $30,000 goes into each house design and had concern that they are now being asked to return to the design stage. They felt the houses met the criteria in that they are not “too similar or too dissimilar”. Mr. Hibbs explained they can seek recourse through the Zoning Board of Appeals.

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

adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m., seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion

carried.