A
Planning Board meeting was held on
Mr. Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the
minutes of the
ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL, RESTAURANT, SUBMITTED BY ATLANTIC HORIZON
INTERNATIONAL,
Aryeh Siegel, representing Atlantic Horizon
International, described his client’s proposal to change the former fish market
at
Mr. Timmis advised the applicant to change the sign dimensions to conform to limits set in the zoning code as previously discussed.
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.
Mr. Sheers made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration for the restaurant project, seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Ms. Rapalje made a motion to grant final Site Plan Approval subject to the plan reflecting sign dimensions that conform with Section 223.15(e)(b), seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL, CHANGE IN USE FROM RESTAURANT/BAR TO OFFICE USE,
SUBMITTED BY
STREET
Ron Bishop, contractor for the applicant, described the proposal to change the use of two rooms in the ground floor of the former Miro’s restaurant/bar into office space. The areas labeled “B” and “C” on the plan will be converted into office space whereas the area labeled “A” and the kitchen will remain a restaurant use. The restrooms will be shared by the restaurant and office spaces, however only one tenant, Beacon Community Action Agency, will occupy the entire floor. The question regarding whether separate restrooms are required for each use will be addressed by the building department.
Mr. Timmis felt wheel stops should be provided for the three parking spaces (two handicap and one standard) located next the building. He asked what type of trucks would use the 35 ft. long loading zone because it may be difficult for vehicles to access the rear parking area. The loading zone could be alternately dimensioned to provide adequate space for ingress and egress to that parking area. Mr. Timmis said the parking calculations for the restaurant should be based on 100 sq. ft. rather than 150 sq. ft. A total of 20 off-street parking spaces are shown on the site where only 15 spaces are needed for the combined restaurant and office spaces. Mr. Timmis suggested removing space #20 because it is so near the curb cut and space #10 to provide a back-up area, thus eliminating two spaces. More information on the size of trucks and delivery times should be provided.
Ms. Strianese expressed concern that a previous
applicant who sought approval for mozzarella distribution was denied approval
for a
Mr. Dexter voiced concern because the kitchen and restaurant space remain unchanged yet the Community Action Agency is leasing the whole first floor. At the last meeting they indicated if the restaurant space were to be used it would be as an educational teaching-type kitchen, and if that is the case, Special Use Permit approval is required. Therefore, before the kitchen-teaching proposal is instituted, the applicant must return to the Planning Board for additional approvals. Mr. Sheers also had concern that the description presented last month included the possibility of a mixed use off and restaurant use open to the public. Mr. Dexter felt approval of this particular application should be very clear in that the kitchen and area labeled “A” will be used as a commercial restaurant open to the public. A different application is necessary if the use described at last meeting comes to fruition because it would be considered a training facility. At the last meeting that proposal had not yet been funded. Therefore the applicant would need to return to the Planning Board for approval to use the kitchen as training facility if that funding becomes available.
There were no comments from the public and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
After some discussion, Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant conditional Site Plan Approval subject to the applicant fulfilling comments presented by City consultants, and the addition of a note specifying areas “B” and “C” will be used for office space and the area labeled “A” and the kitchen will remain a restaurant use. Mr. Sheers seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 3 REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, CHANGE
USE OF EXISTING
AND METAL FABRICATION, SUBMITTED BY IG4, LLC,
Owner Lee Balter and his representatives Peter Hustis
and Aryeh Siegel, presented their plan to change the use of Building #5 (storage)
into a metal fabrication, business and retail use. Also, they are proposing a change in use to Building
#1, the former art foundry. Mr. Balter clarified
the former Tallix site is divided into two separate parcels – Lot #2 owned by
IG4, LLC and Lot #1 owned by Max Protetch.
He asked that applications for the site be considered separately to quell
the perception that the property is one site.
Mr. Hustis explained they have demonstrated that Lot #2 can stand alone
from
Mr. Russo advised the applicant that cross easements
for maintenance and access between the two parcels must be secured. A number of improvements are to be done on
site, i.e. storm drainage, paving, etc.
Mr. Hustis reported approximately 90% of the storm drainage improvements
are complete. He will provide an as-built
plan when all improvements are completed.
Mr. Russo explained easements over utilities, as well as water and sewer
lines, are needed. He asked for an
update on discussions regarding the portion of
Mr. Hustis explained the interior road entering from the east end of Main Street, will curve around to provide better aesthetics and slow vehicles down. The entrance will be gated and owners provided with cards for access. Mr. Balter explained the gates will be open during the day for access. Mr. Timmis felt adequate cue space for backups should be considered. Additionally, Fire Department access must be secured for emergency response. Mr. Dexter advised the applicant to add a note to the plan indicating an approved Fire Department access gate will be installed.
Mr.
Timmis asked that additional landscaping be provided near the
Ms. Strianese expressed concern about the loss of light industrial space which helps support infrastructure economically. Mr. Balter explained the occupancy of each space and indicated no more housing units are proposed for the site.
There were no further comments and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of November, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 4 CONTINUE REVIEW ON
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,
5 BUILDING LOTS, SUBMITTED BY CLARK GEBMAN,
Mr. Hibbs notified Mr. Gebman that the board would
not tolerate any threats; if threats are made, review of the application will
end immediately. Mr. Gebman said these
drawings were submitted to demonstrate his property lies within a flood plain
basin that falls within requirements of Beacon’s flood study as an eligible site
for infill to allow full utilization of the site. Mr. Timmis read Section 223.12(f) –
Buildings, uses and lots which states “No more than 10% of the minimum area
requirement of a lot may be fulfilled by land which is under water or within
the one-hundred-year floodplain (“area of special flood hazard”). All minimum front, side and rear yard
requirements must be satisfied by measurement on dry land.” Mr. Hibbs said the interpretation by City
consultants and zoning administrator is that this property, as it exists, falls
under that section of law. He advised
the applicant that if he disagrees with that interpretation, he can apply to
the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation of that rule. Mr. Gebman felt the law was clear as to the
allowable infill permitted for the construction of homes. Mr. Hibbs explained the board has presented
their position on zoning regulations as outlined in the code however Mr. Gebman
felt the topic deserved further discussion.
Mr. Gebman felt the revised drawings demonstrate that the top of the
retaining walls and back yards will not be in the flood plain. He believed the Planning Board previously set
a precedent by approving construction in other locations within the flood plain
because the City made application to the proper authorities to eliminate some
of the flood plain areas. Mr. Gebman charged the board for embarking on
a new procedure by sending him to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an
interpretation, and that they were acting outside their scope. Mr. Hibbs asked Mr. Russo and Mr. Timmis if
the property was in a flood plain. Mr.
Russo responded that based on information provided and FIRM mapping from FEMA,
a 100-year flood plain runs through the referenced parcel. Section 123 of City Code sets forth
regulations that must be upheld with regard to construction in a flood
plain. However, Mr. Russo continued, the
issue to be addressed is Section 223.12(f) as previously highlighted. Mr. Gebman reported the City allowed
unpermitted fill along the creek of considerable magnitude (50 times greater
than this proposal) less than 100 ft. from his site. He said this property would only need
19-inches of fill although he proposes to add 3 feet more so homeowners could obtain
flood insurance. Mr. Gebman said a 4-foot
wall would be created along the back of the property. He stated that in the history of the Planning
Board they never sent this particular issue to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Mr. Gebman cited New York State
Law as it relates to FEMA flood protection and design criteria. Mr. Hibbs explained the issue in this
application is compliance with City’s zoning regulations. While fill is permitted within a flood plain,
it must be designed to standards outlined in Section 223.12(f) of the City Code
which allows no more than 10% of a minimum area requirement of a lot to be fulfilled
by land that is under water or in the 100-year flood plain line; only 10% of
the property can be located within the flood plain. Mr. Gebman asked Mr. Russo if he had ever
inspected and reviewed the 1982 flood study done for the City of
Mr.
Gebman continued to address other outstanding issues with regard to his
proposal. Mr. Hibbs asked the
consultants how many comments previously raised have been addressed on this
submission. Mr. Russo listed the items that
remain outstanding in his review comments.
Mr. Gebman explained before those items can be addressed he needs the
assistance of the Planning Board and City of
ITEM NO. 5 CONTINUE REVIEW ON
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,
10 BUILDING LOTS, SUBMITTED BY CLARK GEBMAN,
Mr. Russo explained although this property is not shown on FIRM maps to be in a flood zone, awareness of the elevations and channel that runs through the property indicates the northern side may be prone to flooding. A lengthy and technical debate took place between Mr. Gebman and Mr. Russo regarding elevation measurements presented on the plan. After much confusion, it was agreed that based on the surveyor’s measurements, none of the property is located within the flood plain.
Mr. Gebman asked to meet with the City Engineer and City Attorney to determine a foundation for achieving a settlement agreement with regard to the trespass of mountain water crossing his land which he alleges to be illegal. Discussion turned to the history of the property and onto items that the applicant must take up with the City rather than the Planning Board. Mr. Hibbs advised the applicant to schedule time with the City Attorney or City consultants.
Miscellaneous Business
1. Request for
90-day extension of conditional Subdivision approval
Members considered a request from applicant Tariq
Mahmood to extend the conditional subdivision approval granted on
Architectural Review
1. Single Family House –
A number of neighboring residents were in attendance
for the proposed single family house on
1) the property was not listed on the City’s website;
2) the neighborhood was not informed in any way that this item would be
reviewed by the Planning Board;
3) had the neighborhood been informed by either written notice or by the
website, they would have sent letters to the Planning Board expressing their
concerns before the meeting;
4) they request the Planning Board allow them to listen to the discussion and allow them to comment after.
Mr. Buckley explained there was also another
architectural review item added to the agenda after it was posted on the
website. It is not uncommon for
applicants to bring in materials at
Mr. Buckley explained he is before the board to present the architectural design for the house, not to discuss the contractor. However, he reported initial discussions with the contractor have taken place about drainage and how that will be addressed.
Mary Gold,
A debate and discussion took place regarding drainage, storm basins, tree removal and ground water. Mr. Buckley explained initial discussions have taken place with the contractor regarding use of a storm basin and storm drainage line on that road. Mr. Sheers explained he lives four houses down and also had concerns for drainage. When another neighbor took down several trees he had water in his basement for the first time. Mr. Buckley explained not only is drainage affected when trees are removed, underground water courses are also affected by foundations. A storm line exists in the street and initial discussions with the builder have been about the need for gutters, a separate line out to a doghouse manhole, footing drains also on a separate line out to a doghouse manhole, nothing draining to the back of the property at the point of discharge, and possibly a curtain drain around the back and up the sides to discharge in manhole as well. Mr. Hibbs suggested asking the City Engineer to review the drainage proposal. Mr. Buckley explained that can be suggested however this is not an application for Site Plan Approval and engineering review is not mandated.
An unidentified member of the audience who owns property below reported they recently installed an inground pool and underground water lifted it out of the ground. She asked who would be responsible if the pool or her house lifted out of the ground.
Debate continued and individual concerns were raised by numerous residents in attendance. After a lengthy airing of grievances, Ms. Attaway asked where concerns should be aired because the purpose of this item being placed on the agenda was solely for architectural review. Mr. Hibbs reiterated the board can only suggest the plan be reviewed by the City Engineer’s office because Site Plan Approval is not required. Mr. Buckley explained that almost any house built in Beacon now occurs on lots with imperfect conditions between existing houses, and the Building Department must address similar drainage issues on every single application. The Planning Board will strongly recommend the drainage plan be reviewed by the City Engineer.
Discussion
with residents ceased and the board continued with architectural review of the
proposal for a single family house on
2. Single Family
House –
Board members reviewed the design for a proposed single family house at the corner of Maple and Cannon Streets, submitted by DeRonde Design Associates. After considering the proposal and neighboring housing stock, Ms. Rapalje made a motion to approve the design as submitted, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
3. Single Family
House –
Board members reviewed the design for a proposed
single family house on
4. Single Family House – Ski Lodge Property (
Board members reviewed the design for a proposed
single family house at the former ski lodge property on
There was no further business to discuss and Ms.
Rapalje made a motion to close the meeting, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at