A
Planning Board meeting was held on
Mr. Sheers asked for corrections/additions to the
minutes of the
ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION (
LINE REALIGNMENT TO INCLUDE LENNAR LOTS #3, #4 AND #14)
SUBMITTED BY LENNAR CORP.,
P. Daniel Hollis, III, Attorney from Shamberg, Marwell,
Davis & Hollis, P.C., explained his client was previously before the board
for a modification to the Misericordia subdivision. Lennar purchased the approved subdivision
however lot line encroachments were discovered with viable adverse possession claims. In order to deliver clear title for the
affected Lennar properties, the adverse possession issues needed to be
addressed. In July lot lines were amended
for Lennar Lots #5 and #6 and the conservation easement was amended to reflect
the change in property owners. This
application is for Lennar Lots #3, #4 and #14 which affects properties on owned
by Brown and Amato on
Mr. Timmis reported the square footage calculation
for
Mr. Russo indicated there is a small gore area approximately 1.5 ft. wide where ownership is unclear. Mr. Hollis explained both sides are signatory’s to the agreement, therefore when the property is conveyed this shaded area will be included.
Mr. Lanari and Mr. Svetz did not support the concept of this proposal for reasons discussed at previous meetings.
Bill
Zopf,
Carole Sawitz,
Mr. Hollis reported the City signed the modification
of conservation easement on
Ms. Sawitz asked what control the City has over changes that have already been made. She felt there is no conservation easement left to control. Mr. Sheers explained this amendment provides the City with the legal authority that would have been lacking in the areas of adverse possession.
There were no further public comments and Ms. Attaway made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
For the record, Mr. Gunn explained the issue is about adverse possession which put the Planning Board in a difficult position. Members discussed their concerns at length and the perception that people are being allowed to do as they wish should not be perpetuated. Every part of this situation has been thoroughly reviewed and this challenging issue has not been taken lightly. Members agreed to use this as an example and insure easements are handled with great care in the future. Residents were encouraged to call the Building Department if they witness any construction in that area so terms of the easement can be enforced. Mr. Hollis explained after the property is conveyed and deeds recorded, new setback standards are established. He felt this situation was due to a human error in the survey that morphed into a larger problem.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant final subdivision plat approval for lot line realignment to include Lots #3, #4 and #14 of the Lennar development, subject to agreement of the modified conservation easement by the Sycamore Home Owner’s Association, seconded by Mr. Williams. On roll call Mr. Gunn, Mr. Williams, Ms. Strianese, Ms. Attaway and Mr. Sheers voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Svetz and Mr. Lanari voted against the motion. Motion carried 5-2.
ITEM NO. 2 CONTINUE REVIEW OF
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
(TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY DAVID VERDILE,
19 CRESCENT DRIVE
Peter Catazone, Hudson Land Design, presented revisions to the proposed two lot subdivision at 19 Crescent Drive, a .35 acre parcel with an existing single family house. The driveways were moved and sight distances added to the plan as requested. The plan also indicates the existing hedge will be removed as necessary to construct the house and driveway. Two side yard variances are required for the existing house: 8 ft. setback proposed (10 ft. required) and a total side yard of 18.5 ft. proposed (20 ft. is required). After some discussion, members decided to remain neutral with regard to making a recommendation to the Zoning Board. The applicant will return in November for a public hearing if the variances are granted.
ITEM NO. 3 REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
AMENDMENT (
2 BATHROOMS, SUBMITTED BY FISHKILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT
CORP.,
Bob Chiulli, President of 39 Fishkill Creek Development,
described his proposal to add 13 loading docks and 2 bathrooms to a building in
the
Mr. Timmis advised the applicant that the site plan
shows 14 loading docks where only 13 are being proposed. The easterly dock slated for removal must be
noted on the plan. A truck maneuvering
plan with radius measurements must be added to demonstrate 50 ft. tractor trailers
can get in and out of the loading spaces.
Mr. Timmis expressed concern that docks will be visible by the
residences along
Mr. Svetz raised concern for additional truck traffic through the City. Mr. Chuilli explained tractor trailers will utilize the easiest route to Interstate 84 and only delivery trucks will use local roads. Mr. Chuilli will have additional engineering and lighting details added to the plan as requested.
ITEM NO. 4 INITIAL CONSULTATION
OF APPLICATION FOR
SUBDIVISION, TO DEVELOP THE WESTERN PORTION OF PROPERTY
OWNED BY SOUTHERN DUTCHESS COUNTRY CLUB, 1209 NORTH
AVENUE
Bernie Ruff, President of the Southern Dutchess Country Club (SDCC) and Edward Davies, PE, described a proposal to subdivide approximately 10 acres off the golf course property to develop townhouses. Mr. Ruff explained they want to introduce the idea for discussion and feedback prior to making a formal application.
Mr. Ruff provided a copy of the current survey and a
site plan showing a conventional subdivision plan under current zoning. The SDCC owns a parcel in the Town of
Mr. Sheers advised amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and resulting zoning changes may have an impact on the lot count determined under current zoning. The comprehensive plan proposes a change from one-acre to three-acre zoning in that area which would decrease the number of lots in a conventional layout.
Mr. Ruff reported SDCC has been in existence for nearly 105 years and it has become increasingly difficult to keep afloat due to the current economy. Six years ago there were 300 members, this year there are only 155 members and members are dropping out at the end of each year due to increased operational and maintenance costs. As a result, the costs at the end are shared by fewer members, making it too expensive for some to remain. They are concerned that ultimately the membership would dissolve forcing them to sell the property to a developer. Mr. Ruff explained the club is older than Beacon itself and for the sake of preservation this concept may be worth keeping it alive. They want to be environmentally friendly by taking the portion of property that is now being used for maintenance and storage. Density would be focused in one area and a private country club atmosphere would make it marketable. Not only would a sound membership base be established, it would add a level of sustainability for the club’s longevity. If the project goes as planned, an endowment could be created to assure preservation of the property for at least 50 years if not longer. Mr. Ruff reported a presentation of the proposal was made to the City Council which was received rather favorably. Concerns were raised about the price range of the townhouses but consideration must be given to the fact that it is a private club. Mr. Ruff said they would be willing to set aside a portion of the homes as workforce housing for local employees however a margin would need to be established so the venture is profitable. He explained smart planning and green development is a very high matter of importance to them. The existing building will be upgraded in a historical manner and discussions will take place with the City Historian; the golf course itself will also be upgraded.
Mr. Dexter explained this initial consultation is to expose the project to the board so they can present any issues that may be showstoppers. He felt they understand the issues before them include water and sewer, drainage, traffic, density, etc. but they are looking for concerns of major proportion. The club understands concerns for conservation areas and buffering of neighboring properties exist. Mr. Dexter met with SDCC representatives several times to discuss the project and issues they must consider, however they felt it important to get a feel of how the project would be received by the board. Mr. Ruff explained he can’t pursue engineering without some type of sense from the board in order to seek the support of SDCC’s general membership. He feels the club must go into a survival mode in order for it to endure into the future. Although professional engineering has not taken place, Mr. Davies and Mr. Ruff feel they can address water and sewer service issues, and that stormwater needs can be addressed with piping and retention ponds.
Ms. Attaway felt the proposal was good in theory and that more people would come to Beacon for a unique place to live. She felt the club would benefit from a good restaurant open to the public.
Mr. Lanari liked the concept and asked if they had
considered owner-occupancy as a requirement.
Mr. Ruff said it would be considered because both golfers and residents
would need to survive a long term agreement.
It must be a win/win for everyone involved, including the City of
Mr. Williams, a nearby resident, understood the change in Beacon dynamics and the economy, could only respond with wonder. Mr. Ruff offered to give board members a tour of the golf course and facility. He explained they want it to be an improvement by cleaning up the existing building and making the property a historical gateway to Beacon.
Ms. Strianese understood a business must be viable and hated to see it in the hands of a developer. She felt there would be public outcry against any development of the property. Mr. Ruff recognized there would be people against the project. He works for smart developers and noted that more often than not, developments are done as conservation subdivisions to provide more green space. Mr. Ruff said his family was greatly involved in keeping open land and took pride that he is in a field where he can apply smart development as opposed to traditional developments. He believes a community can take advantage of smart growth.
Mr. Svetz asked why membership had dropped so sharply. Mr. Ruff explained individual finances are tighter and the cost of membership including fees, maintenance costs, and annual assessments have taken a toll. Mr. Svetz suggested changing it into a public course. Mr. Ruff said they tried that on a temporary basis but only collected $600. Additionally, SDCC’s charter and bylaws don’t allow for such a change and most members would leave the club if opened to public. He admitted that may happen because the clock is ticking against them and reorganization may be forced. Additionally, in order to make it a public course, a great deal of money must be spent on upgrades and renovations. Mr. Ruff felt they have come up with the most modest unit count to create an endowment needed to make the club survive. Mr. Svetz had concern for the effect it may have on view sheds. Mr. Ruff explained the structures will be built on the down slope of the property therefore won’t affect views of the river. He explained the purpose for this project is true and clean, they have no hidden agenda. There are many short term and mid term solutions to their financial situation, however this is the only feasible long term resolution they can foresee. Mr. Ruff explained the existing restaurant cannot be open to the public due to a liquor license issue and other public golf courses are going bankrupt faster than private ones. He reported the SDCC board consists of volunteer members who are not tuned into the corporate end of running a golf course which makes reaching a consensus on a long term business plan difficult.
Mr. Williams asked if the board would be open to discussing options with professionals outside the club if they were to volunteer their time. Mr. Ruff explained any additional resources would need a positive vote from the SDCC board. He reported the board is scrutinized by all members and it is difficult to make everyone happy.
Mr. Gunn felt their plan was a good idea and suggested they consider a green design for LEED certification. He understood that no one likes to see open space developed but it may be needed to maintain the viability of the club.
Discussion took place regarding the City Council’s goal to approve the draft comprehensive plan by the end of the year, and that laws reflected in that document may take some time to enact. The applicant was informed that they have many hurdles to overcome however no major obstacles from an engineering and planning perspective were presented.
Miscellaneous Business
Informal discussion:
Change in use from restaurant/bar to offices,
Lee Kyriacou, as a private citizen and owner of
Mr. Masters reported services provided by the
Dutchess Community Action Agency include meetings for mentors of the Big
Brother/Big Sister program, child health care enrollment, food stamp
enrollment, and other related services. Their
operation is currently located at
Mr.
Kyriacou explained they prefer to see this operation on
Mr. Dexter interjected that ultimately there will be a Certificate of Occupancy issued to authorize a specific use. The restaurant can have a manager’s office, or an accessory or incidental function related to the main use of the building. However, he explained, as the Zoning Administrator it is his position to determine the category of a building’s use. Mr. Dexter met with Mr. Masters to understand what the primary function would be, as well as to discuss their future goals. Based on that discussion, Mr. Dexter made the determination that the primary use would be business based. The training/school issue would trigger a Special Use permit due to the teaching aspect. Ultimately the approvals needed are determined by the type of activity in a building. Mr. Dexter explained the proposal for the initial office use is clearly a change from the former use as a restaurant/bar. It may not be possible to fashion an approval that allows both of the proposed uses because of the unidentified factors with regard to the restaurant, i.e. is it a café, a full time restaurant, bakery, etc. Mr. Kyriacou explained he does not want to get into a “Catch-22” position by obtaining approval for a business operation while owning a commercial sized kitchen that can’t be used. Mr. Dexter said the application could be to change half the first floor into an office area so only that space would be addressed. Ultimately, Site Plan Approval is needed to change to office use.
Ms. Strianese expressed concern because the board has
made extra effort to make certain that
Mr. Kyriacou asked what degree of information on a site plan would be needed for this change because a great deal of money has already been spent on elevation drawings and floor plans. Mr. Dexter explained the plan must be drafted by a legally certified individual and enhancement of a survey with accurate parking, zoning and related information could be acceptable. After some discussion, Mr. Williams made a motion to schedule a public hearing for the month of October, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
On
another subject, Mr. Kyriacou presented a proposal to add an additional
apartment to the building he owns on
Architectural Review
Members
reviewed elevation drawings and proposed colors for a new single family house
at
There was no further business to discuss and Mr.
Williams made a motion to close the meeting, seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at