Beacon City
Planning Board
January 10, 2006
The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, January 10, 2006
in the courtroom of the Municipal
Center. The regular meeting commenced at 7:10 p.m. with Acting Chairman Jay
Sheers; Members Spring Attaway and Anne Rapalje; Alternate Members Mike Lanari
and Elizabeth Strianese; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; City Engineer Art
Tully; City Planner David Stolman; and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in
attendance. Chairman Hibbs was
excused. Members John Gunn and Tony
Lassiter were absent. Member Randall
Williams joined the meeting at 7:40
p.m.
Mr. Sheers asked for corrections/additions to the
minutes of the December 13,
2005 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. Mr. Lanari made mentioned that at the last
meeting two letters submitted regarding the application for the Amoroso Special
Use Permit were not read aloud nor were they included in the December
minutes. He asked that the letters, as
well as any future correspondence, be included as part of the record. Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the
minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Lanari.
All voted in favor. Motion
carried. Following are the referenced letters
regarding the application submitted by Louis Amoroso for a Special Use Permit to
allow construction of a two-family house on property located at 40 Vail Avenue, as
presented for the public hearing held on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.
Letter One
I have concerns for
the proposed two-story, two-family house to be located across the street from my
home which is located at 57 Vail
Avenue. It
does not appear on the plan that there will be adequate parking; not for just
the proposed two-family home, but also for the already existing home that Mr.
Amoroso currently owns and lives in. The
plan gives four parking spaces when six will be needed (this is based on the
idea that most families/couples have two cars/trucks each). This concerns me because I have the longest
stretch of property across from his property and would most likely always have
their cars parked in front of my property.
Secondly, it would be a shame if everyone in Beacon decides to use up
every single open space for development/profit.
We bought our home in this neighborhood specifically because of the
larger lots and open space. As you have
seen from the very recent past in this very neighborhood (Prospect Street near Green Street
Park) it is not always
the wisest decision to wedge in homes where there is clearly not enough space.
David Gluck
57 Vail Avenue
Beacon, New York
Letter Two
We are submitting this
letter for the record and to be read at the December 13th meeting of
the Beacon Planning Board. Mr. Amoroso
first submitted this request to the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 21, 2005. At that time, after presenting this request
to this board, he was told that he had to go to the Planning Board because this
request fell into the category of “special use”. It would also appear that Mr. Amoroso would
still have to appear before the Zoning Board to satisfy the setbacks on either
side of the planned dwelling. This plan
includes/shows a “shared” driveway to be used by the new dwelling and Mr.
Amoroso’s current residence on Union
Street.
This current residence (Union
Street) has no driveway on Union Street. It was originally built (like other houses on
that street) with driveway access on Vail
Avenue (directly behind). A proposed two family house would need
parking for four (4) cars in addition to Mr. Amoroso’s two cars (three?). There is no provision nor room on this plan
for six cars. There have been no two
family houses built in this area since the adoption of building codes and there
is no reason to circumvent these codes now.
It becomes a “quality of life” issue when houses are built on under sized
lots. The city has to stop granting
these variances. The two houses recently
built on Prospect Street
(near Green Street
playground) are ridiculous. These lots
are too small. It makes one wonder, what
were the Planning Board and Zoning Boards’ thinking when they approved these
plans? It appears that greed has overtaken common sense. This has to stop.
Angelo & Joyce
Pomarico
88 Prospect Street
Beacon, New York
ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,
(5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY BEACON TERMINAL ASSOCIATES,
989 WOLCOTT AVENUE
Mr. Sheers explained this public hearing was
scheduled in order to get public input and comment on a proposed five lot
subdivision of property owned by Beacon Terminal Associates. At last month’s meeting, a great deal of
discussion took place and although the project is in the very early design
stage, board members felt public input at this time would be an important
factor for consideration.
Ernie Martin presented two alternative plans for
subdividing a parcel of land located on Wolcott Avenue next to the River Knolls
development into five separate lots.
One alternative shows three lots accessed from Wolcott Avenue (one
shared driveway and one private driveway) and two lots accessed from Iris Circle. The second alternative provides access to
four lots from Iris Circle
via a private road “hammerhead” design and access to one lot from Wolcott Avenue. The second alternative moved the building
envelope on Lot #1 closer to Wolcott Avenue. Mr. Martin explained the hammerhead design
would take up less property than a typical cul de sac.
Mr. Stolman
reported many of his technical review comments can be addressed after a
conceptual layout is determined. When
incorporating a private road, setback dimensions must be measured from the
right-of-way rather than the common property line, therefore setbacks on Lots
#4 and #5 must be re-measured. Rear yard
setbacks indicated in the bulk requirement table should be 30 ft. rather than
20 ft. and sight distance information must be provided. Access easements and maintenance agreements
must be provided for all lots accessed by the private road and must be
submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval. Lots #1 and #3 do not show the appropriate 30
ft. minimum rear yard setbacks. Building
locations on adjacent properties should be provided on the plat and car turning
templates must be provided for each driveway.
Lastly, Lot #3 does not have adequate
lot depth in the area of the proposed home.
Mr. Tully reported a thorough technical review has
not been done yet for the purpose of achieving an appropriate conceptual
plan. He explained a public hearing is
being held earlier in the process due to concerns regarding development of the
property, i.e. access, drainage, grading and the impact on neighboring
properties. The purpose of this hearing
is to solicit as much information as possible before settling on a final
layout. Mr. Tully explained a final
determination has not been made because public input will help influence the
decision. He said the City is aware of problems
in the area, particularly with drainage and access.
Curtis Blair, 3 Jordan Road, expressed his anger and
disappointment about the way the Planning Board conducts business. He felt taxpayers should have been involved since
the initial presentation rather than after a detailed site plan was
developed. Mr. Blair believed planning
was done secretly without properly informing the public. He felt cramming five more houses on a small
piece of land as just another example of developers’ greed. He described drainage problems in the area
and reported their basement has flooded twice resulting in thousands of dollars
of damage. Mr. Blair believed taking
down trees and adding asphalt would create more runoff for no reason. He asked if low income housing was proposed since
the proposal is not similar to the adjacent Lennar (Misericordia) project. Mr. Blair expressed total dissatisfaction
with the project and was frustrated that plans were drawn up before the public
was informed.
Anita McCabe, 1 Jordan Road, agreed with and supported
Mr. Blair’s comments.
Mr. Sheers explained the Planning Board has legal
obligations and although sympathetic to Mr. Blair’s concerns, disliked the allegation
that the Board creates or approves plans in secret. He explained developers’ work begins before
they submit an application to the Planning Board and this applicant has a long
way to go in the approval process. Mr.
Stolman reported business is conducted this way on every Planning Board that he
is aware of in the State of New York
in that individual homeowners are not notified when items first come on the
agenda. He said the Planning Board is
fulfilling its requirement in every respect with regard to this
application. Planning Board meetings are
open to the public, and the public in this case was notified in the proper
way. Mr. Stolman explained this public
hearing is being held earlier in the process than normal to give the public an
opportunity to provide input. He
reported no action is being taken in secret and in this specific situation, the
Planning Board is acting in a very sensitive manner by seeking public input
earlier than what is typical. Mr.
Stolman said the board is eager to hear any comments the public has with
respect to stormwater, drainage, visual impact, community character, etc.
Sally Blair, 3 Jordan Road, reported they have
experienced two major basement flooding events and have a claim against city
for reimbursement. She feels the more
wetlands that are taken away, the more flooding problems will be
experienced. Mrs. Blair said additional
stormwater will enter her back yard because the parcel in question is on a hill
above her property. She expressed irritation
with the city and presented a file documenting all flooding issues experienced
in her home. A drainage system must be
installed around their house and the basement is down to concrete and can no
longer be used. She informed the board
that neighbors who could not attend have signed a petition so the city will be
faced with many problems. Mrs. Blair conveyed
concerns about the traffic added to their neighborhood from the 14 new homes in
the Lennar development.
Karen Gurina, 16 Iris Circle, advised the board that if
it weren’t for Mrs. Blair’s notification of the meeting she would not have been
aware of the meeting. She appreciated
the request to show existing neighboring structures on the plan. Ms. Gurina reported her husband purchased the
house as new construction in the late 1980’s and expressed concern that the City’s
access easement is between her house and 18 Iris Circle. Mr. Ernst confirmed access would be over the City’s
50 ft. wide right-of-way which is now a “paper street”. Ms. Gurina said she has never experienced
flooding but felt the plan was not aesthetically pleasing because four
additional houses would be crammed into a small section of woods. She asked if it was necessary to make tax
paying citizens unhappy just to add four more tax parcels.
Mr. Blair
reiterated his opposition to the development.
One of the proposed houses will abut the rear of his property and will
be very close to his pool and private area.
He reported a 15-20 ft. grade difference exists between his property and
the subject parcel therefore all runoff will flow into his yard. Mr. Blair objected to five houses and
believed no more than three houses should be put on the parcel.
Ms. Attaway felt relevant drainage concerns should be
taken into consideration so existing homes are not further impacted. Ms. Strianese asked that existing structures
be added to the plan to provide a better understanding of the neighboring impact. Mr. Tully expanded on her comment by
requesting additional site topography to include all adjacent properties and
property addresses on each so neighbor can better identify their property. Mr. Lanari supported the layout that provides
access to four of the lots from Iris
Circle because it addresses the sight distance
issue for the existing driveway. He felt
a site visit would provide a better understanding of the property’s
topography. (Mr. Williams joined the
meeting at 7:40 p.m.) Mr. Sheers understood concerns for sight
distance and drainage; he felt the proposed density could be a detriment to the
area.
David Lloyds, applicant, responded that this
development is less dense than the surrounding development. Also, they originally came in with a plan for
one more flag lot but reduced the density in response to comments that flag
lots are not preferred.
Mr. Martin announced he would like to meet with
neighbors and asked the board for direction in terms of the layout. Ms. Attaway made a motion to adjourn the
public hearing until February 2005, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The public hearing will continue for future
input on plans as they develop.
ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,
(2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY ARNOLD RESTIVO, RALPH
STREET
Eugene Ninnie described his client’s proposal for a
two lot subdivision of a 1,100 sq. ft. lot located on Ralph Street. The property has an existing 2-story single
family house and is located in the R1-5 residential zoning district. The new lots will 5,700 sq. ft. and 5,300 sq.
ft. in size and will be served by City water and sewer services. Cross easement and drainage issues previously
raised have been appropriately addressed.
Mr. Stolman explained the access easement should
cover the entire width of the shared driveway and the plan must demonstrate
vehicle turning templates to show adequate turn around space. He reviewed a few other minor changes that
must be made.
Mr. Tully asked that “See Note 1” note on the proposed
residence be removed from the plan and the 25 ft. distance noted along the road
be added directly to the stopping sight distance measurement. The building elevation note should clearly
indicate the new house will not have a basement. Remaining comments are minor in nature and
can be readily addressed.
There
were no comments from the public and Mr. Williams made a motion to close the
public hearing, seconded by Ms. Rapalje.
All voted in favor. Motion
carried. Mr. Ninnie will bring revised
plans to the next meeting for review.
ITEM NO. 3 REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR SUBDIVISION (2 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS), SUBMITTED BY DAVID DELEO, 59 DEPUYSTER AVENUE
Applicant David DeLeo described his proposal for a
two lot residential subdivision of property located at 59 DePuyster Avenue, south of Grove Street. It is an odd-shaped parcel, approximately 0.8
of an acre located in the R1-10 residential zoning district. A small triangular section of property is slated
to be sold and added to the adjacent property owned by Sergovia. Lot #1 has frontage of 88 ft., Lot #2 has frontage of 50 ft., and a common driveway will
serve both to maximize front yard space and reduce the area of pavement on the
new lot. Easement documents will be
prepared for review and approval by the City Attorney. A detached two car garage is proposed for the
new lot and all minimum setback requirements are fulfilled. City water and sewer will serve both
lots.
Mr. Tully asked that sight distance measurements for
the driveway and a note indicating the existing driveway will be converted to lawn
area be added to the plan. A driveway
maintenance agreement for the common driveway must be prepared and submitted to
the City Attorney for review. Turn
around templates for vehicles backing out of the garages and elevations for the
swale located along the south side of the proposed garage must be shown on the
plan. The location of existing services
for the existing house must be listed to be sure they are not located on the
adjacent parcel. If the triangular
section of land on the plan is to be attached to the Segovia property, they must also sign and be
made part of the application.
Mr. Stolman noted Lot
#2 does not meet the required minimum width of 85 ft. on the front portion of
the lot, therefore, the front yard setback must be shown at the point where the
lot is 85 ft. wide. He advised the
applicant to make sure no part of the building envelope is located within that
portion. The proposed house should be
moved closer to the street consistent with adjacent homes. Mr. DeLeo explained they set the house back in
order to provide more front lawn space but will revisit that alignment. Discussion took place regarding turnaround
spaces for the garages and the possibility of sharing space to minimize the
amount pavement. After some discussion,
Ms. Attaway made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of March,
seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 4 REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT,
(RESIDENTIAL OVER ARTIST LIVE/WORK), SUBMITTED BY GRZEGORZ
STACHNIK, 538-540 MAIN
STREET
Aryeh Siegel presented his client’s proposal to
construct a new three-story building at 538 Main Street consisting of an artist
live/work space on the ground floor and four apartments on the upper
levels. Five parking spaces will be provided
below the building, however a total of eight parking spaces are required. Mr. Stolman advised them to make application
to the Zoning Board of Appeals for parking and density variances. With regard to density, Mr. Siegel believed
zoning allowed 3.9 units but was unclear whether the artist live/work space counted
as a dwelling unit for zoning purposes. Mr.
Dexter explained the regulation allows no more than 30% of the artist live/work
space for use as living space therefore his department has not typically counted
it as residential occupancy when applying the zoning code. Mr. Stolman will consult with Mr. Dexter regarding
what level of density variance will be required. Additionally, he advised the applicant to
provide sight distance measurements for the driveway and turning radius template
for vehicles parking in the garage spaces.
Discussion took place regarding the access easement and whether the
pavers on Sauers’ side of the driveway can be driven on or if curbing is needed. Mr. Tully asked that a typical site plan be
submitted so easements, property lines and topography information can be easily
distinguished from the architectural aspects of the plan. The applicant will apply to the Zoning Board
of Appeals before returning to the Planning Board.
ITEM NO. 5 REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR SUBDIVISION, (4 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS), SUBMITTED BY TARIQ MOHMOOD, 15 WEST WILLOW STREET
Dennis
Walden described his client’s proposal for a four lot subdivision of a 1.44
acre parcel of land located between East
Willow Street, West Willow
Street and Wilkes Street
in the R1-7.5 single family zoning district.
The owner will continue to live in the existing house that fronts West Willow Street,
labeled as Lot #4 on the plan.
Mr. Tully
asked that sight distance measurements for each driveway and street front
topography information be provided on the plan.
Turn around templates for each driveway should be shown, specifically
for Lots #2 and #3. Additional
information on grading, drainage, footing drains, roof leaders, as well as all
proposed and existing services, i.e. water, sewer, gas, electric must be
provided. Mr. Tully advised the
applicant to consider placing the driveway for Lot
#1 on Wilkes Street
rather than East Willow Street. A meeting with the City Engineer, Mr. Walden
and the Street Superintendent will be scheduled.
Mr.
Stolman asked for additional topography information and indication of what
trees will be removed. The proposed lot
line places the existing brick garage on Lot
#4 only 2 ft. from the property line where a 5 ft. setback is required. Mr. Walden said he would adjust the property
line so the garage would be in compliance.
Minimum front yard setbacks in the R1-7.5 zoning district are 30 ft. and
the plan shows setbacks of 40 ft.
Setback information on the surrounding houses must be provided to determine
that frontage for the new structures will be uniform.
ITEM NO. 6 CONTINUE REVIEW OF
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 3
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY KIMMEL, STONE STREET
Glennon Watson, of Badey & Watson, presented the
revised plan for a three lot subdivision of property located off Stone Street in the
R1-10 zoning district. The existing
house located on Lot “C” and the two new
single family dwellings will be served by a private road off Stone Street. A minimum front yard setback of 30 ft. is required
therefore a variance for the 25.7 ft. front yard setback on the existing house
is required.
Mr. Stolman asked that the driveway and turn around
area for Lot “C” be shown on the plan and the
location map be amended to point out the appropriate property. A portion of Lot
“B” where it tapers is less than the required 85 ft. width therefore Mr.
Stolman asked that the building envelope not extend into that area. Setback measurements must be provided on each
lot; a maintenance agreement and access easement documents for the private road
must be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney. Note #11 on the plan must be revised to
indicate the corner lot has access onto Stone Street.
Mr. Tully asked that Overlook Avenue be labeled on the plan. Clarification regarding the access to Lot #3 is needed because it appears to be from Overlook Avenue
where the lot obtains its street frontage rather than from the private road. This arrangement was part of the subdivision
done in 1989 when all three lots were created; Lot
#3 is vacant so sensibly the house and access should be from the private road
rather than Overlook Avenue. Although this lot is not part of the current
subdivision, it makes good planning sense to make access from Kimmel Drive and remove
the access from Overlook Avenue.
Mr. Tully explained the plan currently shows the
driveway for Lot “A” at the end of the private
road as the turnaround area however a cul de sac, hammerhead or turnaround area
must be constructed. A driveway cannot
be used as a public turnaround and cannot physically accommodate emergency
vehicles. Mr. Watson provided a drawing
to show that a fire truck with a wheelbase of 144-inches has the ability to
turn around in the driveway of Lot “A”. Mr. Tully explained regulations do not allow
a driveway to be used as a turnaround and another configuration must be
designed. He advised the applicant to
work with emergency service personnel so a configuration minimizing the amount
of pavement can be arranged. Mr. Dexter explained
the smallest emergency vehicle has a 180-inch wheel base and offered to review
the intersection with the applicant. Mr.
Tully announced a few outstanding technical comments remain.
Mr.
Watson reported he would apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from
the front yard setback requirement and requested the Board consider issuing a
favorable endorsement. Mr. Sheers said
they would discuss the request during the Miscellaneous Business portion of the
meeting as typically done.
ITEM NO. 7 CONTINUE REVIEW OF
SUBDIVISION, (4 RESIDENTIAL LOTS),
SUBMITTED BY STEVEN & PATRICIA ROTHBERG, TOMPKINS AVENUE
Steven and Patricia Rothberg attended the meeting to
review and discuss the proposed four lot subdivision of property located on Tompkins Avenue. Mr. Rothberg reviewed comments provided to
them over the last two years and believed the last the sticking point was with
stopping distance. He asked for
clarification to better understand what issues remain.
Mr.
Sheers explained that at the last meeting (October 2005) when the Rothberg’s
were represented by Dennis Walden, discussion took place regarding a private
road or common driveway concept. Mr.
Stolman provided a copy of his comment memorandum to both Mr. Rothberg and
board members. As a follow up to the
private road/common driveway situation, he asked if alternate concepts had been
presented to the Planning Board. Mr.
Rothberg reported he worked with Mr. Walden and talked to both consultants but
those concepts had not been formally submitted.
Mr. Stolman reviewed his memo which outlined information missing from
the submitted plan. Mr. Rothberg thought
the requested stopping distance information had been included on the plan therefore
asked for clarification. Mr. Stolman
explained the plan attempts to show intersection sight distance and advised the
applicant to take on a professional that is familiar with these technical
issues to address what is trying to be achieved. He described the difference between
intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance; if intersection sight
distance can’t be met, then stopping sight distance must be met. The plan must provide enough information to
determine whether or not intersection sight distance is met and this plan does
not confirm whether intersection sight distance is adequate. Mr. Tully explained removal of all trees,
vegetation, cutting back the embankment, grading, etc., needed to achieve sight
distance will have an impact on the site.
Aesthetics are important and may raise concern to a point where other
ways to subdivide the property may be preferable. Mr. Stolman suggested an alternate layout may
be superior from both an environmental point of view and with respect to how
much environmental degradation must take place in order to get four viable driveways. Mr. Tully advised the board that the property
will be cleared and cut down approximately 30 ft. in from the curb line to see
in both directions. The removal of
several trees and rock outcrops will affect the existing character of the
property. Mr. Tully explained that based
on this plan, it is not clear whether more clearing would be needed in order to
achieve the appropriate sight distance.
Mrs. Rothberg explained they felt this plan would be more practical and
less of an eyesore than a private road with a large cul de sac where residents will
be on top of each other. She reported the
presented layout because they intend to construct a new home on Lot #1 where their privacy will be preserved. Discussion took place regarding the wooded
area, stone wall and potential affects a private road may have on the
property. Mr. Sheers expressed concern
that 30 ft. of clear cut grading may have a negative impact on the environment relative
to SEQRA regulations. Mr. Tully
explained the board has not had the opportunity to consider alternative design
layouts. Mr. Rothberg said they are
trying to understand what is needed in order to move forward and asked if it
the application would be more favorable if they provided a subdivision layout with
a private road. Mr. Stolman explained
the board and its consultants cannot design the subdivision; however a layout
incorporating a private road has not been presented for consideration. Ms. Attaway referred to Mr. Stolman’s memorandum
which at this point has not been responded to, thus leaving the subject of
adequate sight distance unresolved. Mr.
Sheers explained the board’s interest in examining a one access private road from
Tompkins Avenue
would be to determine whether it would be less disturbing than 2, 3 or 4 private
driveways. Mr. Williams acknowledged
frustration on both sides; he felt it helpful to see another option to open up
dialogue, or to provide data on the current layout to show the requirements can
be achieved. Ms. Attaway recalled
discussion that application would not be put on the agenda when outstanding
items are not provided as requested. Mr.
Rothberg felt comment letters should be mailed directly to the home address of the
applicant, particularly when they are being represented. Considering the issue involves the
applicant’s professional who is a surveyor and not an engineer, Ms. Strianese felt
an alternate professional should be made aware of the specific criteria that
must be provided. Mr. Rothberg reported
that has taken place on several occasions however Mr. Stolman explained his
office has not been contacted for assistance in a long time and standards often
change. Bluntly, he advised the
applicant to hire someone who can deal with the technical issues of this
subdivision.
Mr. Rothberg expressed concern that if they go to a
private road layout, additional hurdles will be put in front of them. He asked the board to inform him now if they
don’t want the property subdivided; otherwise tell him whether a private road
layout with a single access from Tompkins
Avenue is preferred. Mr. Tully advised him that the Planning Board
may prefer to see a private road layout as an alternative to see what impacts there
may be before making any determinations.
Mr. Lanari agreed with Ms. Attaway’s comment that the original request
for information from October 2005 has not been adequately addressed based on
consultants’ analysis, no matter what breakdown in communication took
place. Although the board has not stated
a preference, he would have prepared a “Plan B” to fall back on. Mr. Williams explained no known hurdles other
than those listed in the memorandum are being deliberately placed in the way of
their progress. Additional dialogue can
take place with either a solution to the sight distance within this plan or
alternative plans can be presented. Mrs.
Rothberg said if they go back to the idea of a private driveway, a problem remains
with sight distance due to the crest of the hill on Tompkins Avenue. Discussion took place regarding the need for
a public hearing and the Rothberg’s were informed all applications before the
Planning Board require a public hearing.
In summary, Mr. Sheers advised the applicant to seek a solution as it is
a challenging site to develop; the Planning Board cannot design a project for
an applicant.
ITEM NO. 8 REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE
REALIGNMENT), SUBMITTED BY CITY OF BEACON, CROSS STREET
PARKING LOT
Mr. Tully explained this is an existing parking lot
the City of Beacon
constructed on Cross Street
behind the old Tompkins Hose fire house.
A small area (marked in yellow) is to be conveyed to Crossix Realty due
to property line problems when the City acquired the property. The City and Mr. Guarneri (Crossix Realty)
came to an agreement that Crossix would acquire that portion of land after the
City constructed the parking lot. Based
on that agreement, a subdivision or lot line realignment is needed to convey
that portion of property as planned.
Signed agreements between the City and Crossix Realty are on file. There were no questions and Ms. Attaway made
a motion to set a public hearing for the month of February, seconded by Ms.
Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Miscellaneous
Business
Mr. Sheers called for discussion of the Kimmel
subdivision with regard to Mr. Watson’s request for a positive endorsement to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Stolman
explained that incorporating a private road in a subdivision changes the way
setbacks are measured. The front yard
setback for the existing house must be measured from the right-of-way line
which leaves a 26 ft. front yard setback where 35 ft. is required. It is impractical to move the existing house
therefore members agreed a variance would be the best way to correct the
problem. Mr. Williams made a motion to
forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in support of the
variance request for a front yard setback of 26 ft. for the existing house,
seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
Architectural
Review
Mr.
Dexter, supported by City Attorney Pisanelli, reviewed the Architectural Review
Law to clarify its contents for members of the board. There are two aspects to the law: one when property is located in the
historical overlay district which gives the board a little more authority and
discretion; and the other when addressing Site Plans and/or new single family
home construction. Mr. Dexter explained that
in order to ensure the board does not go beyond the scope of their authority, the
law must be clearly understood. If the
board denies the design of a new single family house, it must be for reasons
stated in Section 82-6(c) which talks about the affects it may have on the desirability
of surrounding properties. The design of
a structure cannot destroy the relationship between the taxable value of real
property and the cost of municipal services.
He went on to explain that when a single family house design is denied, the
board must be in a position to defend the undesirable affect it would have on
the neighborhood which goes beyond trim, colors, etc. unless located in a
historical overlay zone. Mr. Dexter
reviewed Chapter 86-5 which outlines the criteria for recommendations: no building or structure, or land development
shall be so detrimental to the desirability, property values or development of
the surrounding area as to provoke one or more of the harmful effects set forth
in Section 86-2(c), in addition to addressing similarities, dissimilarities,
size and items of that nature, etc.
Therefore, if the design of a single family house is denied, back up
information must be provided to show how the desirability, health, safety and/or
welfare of a community or neighborhood would be affected based on items
outlined in that section of the code. City
Attorney Pisanelli advised members that they must be able to litigate exactly
what is not desirable about a proposal.
He emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to the law. Mr. Stolman added that a design cannot be
rejected simply because you like or dislike a particular style; reasoning must
go to the specifics outlined in the law.
12
Aldridge Place – Single Family House
As
discussed at the last meeting, Mr. Dexter returned to Aldridge Place to take pictures of
surrounding homes in the neighborhood.
He provided colored photos and a site map of the street to show how they
relate to the house being proposed on the cul de sac. After members reviewed the presented
information, Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the proposed design as
presented, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
106
Catherine Street – Single Family House
Members
reviewed amended elevation drawings and compared them to the original proposal for
a proposed single family house at 106
Catherine Street.
Mr. Dexter provided photos and a site map of the neighboring properties. Two revised elevation drawings were
presented: one removed the sunburst,
shutters, six-over-six windows and details on the door; and the other included
the same changes but changed the roof direction.
After some discussion and review, Ms. Attaway made a
motion to approve the amended proposal with the altered roof direction,
seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
Certificate of
Appropriateness – (colors only; elevation approved): 542-544
Main Street
Members reviewed alternate color chips and color
combinations proposed for the building located at 544 Main Street owned by 544
Main Street, LLC (Stacey Shurgin). After
reviewing the proposal Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the combination of
Benjamin Moore colors Henderson Buff and Newburg Green, seconded by Ms.
Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
In light of the discussion regarding the
architectural review law, Mr. Sheers asked members to consider a request that
the City Council revisit the law in an effort to make it more manageable. He feels the law is difficult to work with
based on the intent and suggested a clearer standard or more subjective
standards would be beneficial. Mr.
Dexter informed the board that they can encourage or offer suggestions to
applicants without denying a proposal adding that many times builders and/or
homeowner appreciate recommendations that may improve the original design. Mr. Dexter explained the original intent of
the law was not to tell residents how to build or design their houses. It was designed to preserve existing
neighborhoods and housing stock, i.e. to ensure a raised ranch is not placed in
the middle of a neighborhood consisting of Victorian houses, or that a log
cabin is not built in a development consisting of raised ranch-style homes. Mr. Dexter agreed that it may be the appropriate
time to develop a more subjective standard.
Mr. Williams was not opposed to the suggestion but explained it places
the board on a higher level of accountability with more power. After further discussion, Mr. Williams made a
motion to request the secretary prepare a memorandum to the City Council
requesting they revisit the standards listed in the architectural review law,
seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
There was no further business to discuss and Ms.
Rapalje made a motion to
adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m., seconded by Ms.
Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.