Beacon City Planning Board

April 10, 2007

A Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. with Acting Chairman Jay Sheers; Members Mike Lanari and John Gunn; Alternate Members Elizabeth Strianese and Jim Svetz ; City Engineer John Russo (in for Art Tully); Planner Chan Timmis (in for David Stolman); City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli and Building Inspector Tim Dexter. Chairman Jay Hibbs, and Members Randall Williams, Spring Attaway and Anne Rapalje were excused.

Mr. Sheers asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the March 13, 2007 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. Mr. Gunn made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR

SUBDIVISION (4 RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY TARIQ MAHMOOD

(PROPERTY OWNED BY PETER IANNONE), 15 WEST WILLOW STREET

Dennis Walden explained comments from the last meeting had to do with the condition and capacity of the existing sewer line. He reported approximately 200 ft. of the existing sewer line was replaced within the last five years because tree roots had invaded the clay tile line. He said the Water/Sewer Superintendent also informed him that this sewer line is on the City’s high priority maintenance list for regular jetting of the line. Mr. Russo confirmed that part of the clay line was replaced with plastic piping and there have been no problems since it has been on a regular maintenance schedule.

Based on the proposed floor and invert elevations of the yard drains located behind the proposed homes, Mr. Russo advised a pump system must be installed. The type or pump or method used must be acceptable to the Building Department and clearly noted on the plan. Mr. Dexter explained if the drains don’t gravity feed, the builder will end up raising the house thus creating a higher foundation not typically favored by the architectural review board. He emphasized the importance of adding specific notes so the Planning Board is aware of the first floor elevations. Mr. Russo added that roof leader and footing drain lines should run separately to the yard basins.

Mr. Russo reported the sidewalk at the intersection of Wilkes Street and East Willow Street should be increased in width to allow for a handicap ramp and ensure proper clearance around the utility pole. The proposed driveway on Lot #1 should be shifted because it appears a vehicle could not properly turn into the garage; car templates should be added to the driveways to be sure there is sufficient room for backing and turning movements. Lastly, additional screening should be provided along the back of Lots #1, #2 and #3 to provide privacy for each parcel.

George Coughlin, 25 East Willow Street, asked what type of architecture is proposed for the three new houses. Mr. Walden reported they have not yet made that determination but plans will go through architectural review and approval. Mr. Coughlin was aware that a section of the sewer line had been replaced but felt it may not correct the problem in the remainder of the line. Although there have been no problems recently, he had concern that more would be created with the three new houses.

Mr. Russo reported the sewer line will be able to handle the demand created by three new homes. He explained it is a dead-end main and additional flow keeps solids from separating and keeps the lines cleaner.

Mr. Coughlin reported he is at the very end of the line. Mr. Russo was aware that the manhole is on Mr. Coughlin’s line and had concern that his sewer service line may not have ample pitch. Mr. Coughlin reported his line has adequate pitch because it is 7 ft. above the road. He asked when Willow Street storm drains would be replaced and noted East Willow Street has not been touched in over 35 years. Mr. Sheers explained that the Planning Board does not have jurisdiction over road work and advised him to appeal to the City Council. Mr. Russo reported the yard drains will run behind the homes and run into the storm drainage system on West Willow Street.

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

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

Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant preliminary subdivision approval, subject to the applicant fulfilling consultant comments, waive the final public hearing for the final subdivision plat based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same, and grant final subdivision plat approval subject to the conditions outlined in the preliminary approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 2 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION

(LOT LINE REALIGNMENT), SUBMITTED BY LENNAR CORP., VICTOR

ROAD

Mr. Sheers explained the public hearing on this application was closed and preliminary approval was granted subject to including the four affected property owners on the application. Chris Ankner announced that three of the four affected property owners have agreed to become part of the application. Since the last meeting, Mr. Ankner reported they investigated conditions that existed prior to the original subdivision approval. Aerial photographs of the area from 2004, obtained from Dutchess County, were presented to show the encroachments in question were in place at the time but not shown on the subdivision plat. Michael Myers, Division President explained the preliminary approval granted at last month’s meeting was subject to the other affected property owners joining the action, the fences, patios and/or structures be removed from the easement area, and the other parties acknowledge the distance of the conservation easement. However, he added, the question remained as to whether the area should be restored. Mr. Myers requested the Board reconsider their determination that the fences, patios, etc. be removed because pictures show that they existed prior to the imposition of the conservation easement. He explained the property as it sits now appears to be as it was when final approval was granted. Mr. Myers felt all four affected property owners would have agreed to the lot line realignment if they could tell all parties (including those that have already said they would remove the encroachments) that an error was probably made in the survey of the original subdivision inherited by Lennar. He said existing property owners believed they were within the bounds of their property. Mr. Myers explained that had the encroachments been shown on the survey of the final subdivision, this situation would have been discussed at the initial subdivision review. A review of Planning Board minutes had very little mention with regard to the conservation easement. Mr. Myers reported there was vague reference that it was there to “protect the trees that buffer existing homeowners”. He believes both the use of the property was inadvertent at the time, as well as it was inadvertent that the surveyor did not pick it up. Mr. Myers explained they are just trying to right the situation that involves two fences, a piece of patio and grass.

Mr. Gunn noted the four properties were sold and at some point, those purchasers should have been made clearly aware of the conditions. He felt the mere fact that encroachments were inadvertent should not preclude terms of the easement. Mr. Myers reiterated that had anyone been aware of the encroachments, the issue would have been addressed when the easement was created.

Mr. Russo explained the conservation easement that runs around the project is not 50 ft. wide at every point. If it had been known at the time, it is possible the easement would have been narrowed in this area. Discussion took place regarding the two other lots that have encroachments but are in litigation. In those cases, the judge could rule for the encroacher and eliminate the easement restrictions.

Mr. Gunn continued to support the decision made at last month’s meeting in that the encroachments should be removed. Ms. Strianese agreed, explaining that they have the obligation to protect City imposed limitations in order to protect individual property owners.

Mr. Myers countered that the intent of the conservation easement was to buffer these homes and the perception by everyone at the time was that this was the property line, including the surveyor for Misericordia. The content of the conservation easement was that nothing could happen within the easement, i.e. trees could not be cut down, trees could not be planted, that the property remain “status quo”. Mr. Myers feels that they have demonstrated that the existing conditions were “status quo” at the time so the intent of the conservation easement if a property transfer takes place is a perfectly honest action. He felt a conservation easement is intended to conserve habitat, fauna, animals, etc., and to maintain existing conditions.

Ms. Strianese felt the fact that the land was already spoiled should not negate the intent of a buffer zone. Mr. Myers read Planning Board minutes where Mr. Stolman recommended a conservation easement be provided along the building lots to protect the trees along the perimeter of the property. Mr. Myers said there would be no benefit to punish the property owners because everyone is looking to do the right thing.

Mr. Lanari pointed out the yellow lot lines provided on the GIS map are not completely accurate. Mr. Ankner provided a current survey and compared it to the GIS map which revealed a high level of accuracy. Mr. Lanari continued to hold his position that the sheds and fences should be removed with no requirement for restoration. He noted other property owners of Iris Circle favored this cluster housing subdivision which provided larger houses on smaller lots and a conservation easement.

Mr. Sheers agreed that the owners of Iris Circle who spoke at the initial public hearings expected a 50 ft. buffer. He agreed the decision made last month should not be changed at this time. No further action was taken.

ITEM NO. 3 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT,

ACCESSORY APARTMENT, SUBMITTED BY TIM JOSEPH, 9 ALDRIDGE

PLACE

Tim Joseph described his proposal to construct an accessory apartment in the basement of his house located at 9 Aldridge Place. The apartment will be approximately 636 sq. ft., four parking spaces are provided and the house is located at the end of a dead end street. Mr. Joseph explained this is his primary residence and he will continue to occupy the main portion of the house. The apartment meets all zoning requirements and the four parking spaces already exist. Although members felt the parking layout wasn’t ideal because vehicles must back out into the street, it was understood that the street does not have through-traffic.

After some consideration, Mr. Lanari made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of May, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 4 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT,

WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY, SUBMITTED BY OMINIPOINT

COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SUBSIDIARY OF T-MOBILE), ONE FORRESTAL

HEIGHTS

William Hurst of Hiscock & Barclay, representing Omnipoint Communications, described their proposal to install six wireless antennas on the penthouse roof of the Beacon Housing Authority building at One Forrestal Heights. Six new wireless antennas will be collocated with 18 existing wireless facilities. A report was submitted to show that the antennas will comply with federal and local requirements. Mr. Hurst provided members with propagation maps to show existing and proposed coverage areas, as well photo simulations of the site both before and after installation. The antennas will be placed well below the other facilities, therefore not visible from the street. A copy of their lease with Beacon Housing Authority was also provided for review. Access to the facility will be limited to the Housing Authority’s hours of operation (8:00 am to 4:00 pm) and the company will be held to the same regulations of residents of the building. Mr. Hurst reported the new equipment will not interfere with residential equipment, i.e. computers, televisions, radios, etc., 911-emergency services or transmissions of other wireless facilities on the building. A provision for removal of the equipment, if necessary in the future, is provided in the lease agreement. The proposal complies with local zoning requirements and in particular, this building is chosen as the number one priority for locating wireless facilities.

Mr. Hurst noted a previous application to install a facility on the Southern Dutchess Golf Club property was met with severe reaction. That application has been abandoned based on that appearance. Board members were pleased to see the positive change in application.

Mr. Russo informed the applicant that interference with local police channels was created when Nextel first installed their equipment on the building. Engineer Thien Nguyen reported Nextel has a history of interference because they have a lower frequency range; Omnipoint facilities operate at a much higher frequency. Mr. Russo asked the applicant to check with local emergency departments be sure there will be no interference.

Mr. Lanari felt the application falls well within the City’s intent of the law. He asked for information on the equipment cabinets. Mr. Hurst explained they will prepare a 10 ft. x 20 ft. concrete pad to store three cabinets which will be fenced to match the existing facilities. Ms. Strianese asked if accommodations had been made in the event building residents experienced health problems as a result of the antenna installation. Mr. Hurst assured the board that they would immediately investigate and remedy any adverse impact that occurred. An extensive study was done to be sure the equipment will not create problems for residents.

After some consideration, Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of May, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 5 REVIEW APPLICATION TO AMEND AN EXISTING SPECIAL

USE PERMIT, MODIFY APARTMENT LAYOUT FROM ONE TO TWO UNITS,

SUBMITTED BY ANTHONY FOX & PAUL QUELEY, 463 MAIN STREET

Jeff Wilkinson, representing Anthony Fox, reported this parcel has approval for one commercial space on the lower level and one two-level 2,400 sq. ft. residential unit which occupies the rear portion of the lower level and the entire second floor. Mr. Fox is seeking approval to create a studio apartment at the rear of the ground floor behind the commercial space. Mr. Wilkinson explained the existing apartment is very large and difficult to rent. The 700 sq. ft. studio apartment would provide the income needed to sustain the building. Mr. Fox’s lighting shop will continue to occupy the Main Street commercial space. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building. Mr. Wilkinson explained this action requires an area variance because zoning requires 1,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,500 x 2 units = 3,000) and the existing lot is 2,500 sq. ft. Application has been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals’ and a hearing is scheduled for April 17, 2007. Mr. Gunn made a motion to schedule a public hearing for the month of May subject to the applicant receiving the required variance, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Architectural Review

1. 40 Vail Avenue – Two Family House

Mr. Dexter provided a brief description of the project before turning it over to the owner, Lou Amoroso. The board previously approved the proposed elevations subject to the addition of a covered front porch across 80% of the front elevation; for various reasons, the applicant did not want such a large front porch. At the applicant’s request, Mr. Dexter took additional photos to depict housing stock in the neighborhood. Mr. Amoroso reviewed each house and location in detail with board members. A lengthy discussion took place regarding his original proposal and subsequent recommendations presented by the architectural review board. Mr. Amoroso explained he is obligated to make the house appear as a single-family dwelling and every effort has been made to conform to that requirement. After an extensive debate and consideration, Mr. Svetz made a motion to approve the proposed elevation drawn by Justin Kakur, dated January 25, 2007 as submitted and color scheme, seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

2. Union Street – Single Family Dwelling

Members reviewed elevation drawings and proposed colors for a new single family house on Union Street submitted by Dick Malouf. Mr. Dexter provided photos of surrounding homes to provide an overview of the neighboring housing stock. After carefully reviewing the information submitted, Ms. Strianese made a motion to reject the proposed design for a new single family house, seconded by Mr. Svetz. Members felt the design does not fit into the neighborhood appropriately because it does not adequately resemble adjacent houses in relation to roof lines, the entrance does not have a covered porch, and the windows are inconsistent and have no shutters. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Miscellaneous Business

1. Comprehensive Plan Review

Mr. Gunn provided an update on the status of City Council’s review of the draft comprehensive plan. He reported they are currently reviewing the final chapters of the proposal. Mr. Sheers asked if any consideration had been given to Main Street parking requirements, specifically the portion of code that relates to 1964 parking regulations. More specifically, he felt parking rules for certain Main Street businesses should be eased and parking requirements for residential housing be more stringent. A lengthy discussion took place regarding drafting a letter to the Comprehensive Plan Committee to present specific recommendations regarding Main Street parking. Members agreed that any reference to the 1964 parking regulations be eliminated completely and that parking requirements be eliminated for businesses that want to locate on Main Street and have less than 10-20 employees. They also felt that addressing residential parking would negate some of the parking problem because tenants would not be parking “24-7” along Main Street. The secretary will draft a memorandum outlining members’ concerns and recommendations for submission to the Comprehensive Plan committee.

Members also reviewed proposed roads on the Comprehensive Plan and Mr. Lanari questioned the reasoning for some of the changes. He explained several of the paper streets have been sold, and some of the property is not favorable for development due to soil conditions. Mr. Gunn explained the changes are only proposed and are presented for consideration purposes.

There was no further business to discuss and Ms. Strianese made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m., seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.