March 11, 2008
A Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Jay Sheers, Members John Gunn, Jim Svetz and George Mansfield; City Engineer John Russo (in for Art Tully); City Planner Chan Timmis (in for David Stolman); City Attorney Richard Wolf; and Building Inspector Tim Dexter. Member Randall Williams was excused; Members Anne Rapalje and Spring Attaway were absent; and Alternate Member Liz Strianese was absent.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2008 meeting as submitted, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item No. 1
Public hearing on application for Site Plan Approval (restaurant),
submitted by Petrit Gjokaj, 381 Main Street
Aryeh Siegel presented his client’s proposal to change a portion of the building at 381 Main Street into a restaurant use. A parking variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals because the building occupies the entire lot. There are two municipal parking lots adjacent to the building and they feel the restaurant use will not have a negative impact on parking.
There were no comments from the public and Mr. Gunn made a motion to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA process, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Members reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the project has no substantial impact on the environment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Signage will be located over the new entrance door on Veteran’s Place and will comply with zoning. Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant Site Plan Approval, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item No. 2
Public hearing on application for Site Plan Approval, renovate existing
3-story building (retail on first floor/2 apartments above), submitted by
Robert McAlpine, 179 Main Street
Aryeh Siegel presented his client’s proposal to change the use of the ground floor space of the building at 179 Main Street from a restaurant to retail use. Two existing apartments on the upper floors will not change and additional off-street parking is not needed because the proposed use is less intense than the approved restaurant use. The front elevation will be improved with a new cornice to better fit the historical nature of nearby buildings. The light fixture located to the rear of the building was changed from a motion sensor light to a timer as requested.
There were no comments from the public and Mr. Gunn made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA process, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Members reviewed the short Environmental Assessment Form and Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the project will have no substantial impact on the environment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant Site Plan Approval for the change of use from restaurant to retail; and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed elevation changes as submitted. Mr. Svetz seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item No. 3
Public hearing on application for Site Plan Approval amendment (storage
building), to add loading docks and 2 bathrooms, submitted by Fishkill Creek
Development Corp., 39 Front Street
Project Engineer Chris DiAngeles of Civil Design Associates described his client’s proposal to create a distribution center on a portion of the site at 39 Front Street for Marcus Dairy. New loading docks and office space will be constructed. Comments submitted by the consultants regarding parking, lighting, drainage, etc., at the last meeting were addressed as requested.
A study was performed by Phil Clark of Tech Environmental to determine noise levels from idling trucks and refrigeration units to assure compliance with City zoning requirements. Mr. Timmis was on site when the study was conducted and noted the sound levels include ambient noises, i.e. the creek, road travel on Route 52, etc. Measurements for seven trucks were taken and noise levels, including ambient noise, went slightly over the allowed thresholds. Mr. Timmis explained three or four trucks drove by on Front Street during his hour visit which caused the averages to elevate. Although there will be fourteen docks, the applicant reported only seven trucks are expected at any one time. Acoustical fencing or some type of evergreen plantings could be put in to shield and redirect sound back toward the site.
Mr. Sheers raised concern with the condition of the road leading to the proposed facility, specifically for the noise that will be created by large trucks traveling over the bumpy surface. It is a private road owned by John Milano and is not in the best shape. Mr. Mansfield reported the Traffic Safety Committee reviewed the plan and also had concern because trucks have gotten stuck traveling over the railroad tracks due to the grade. Mr. DiAngeles reported 32 ft. box trucks will be used and they had no problem clearing the crossing when the noise level study was conducted.
Owner Bob Chuilli has a legal easement and access agreement for use of the private road. He explained Mr. Milano has been repairing the roads within the complex one at a time. New sidewalks were installed last year and Mr. Chuilli reported Mr. Milano said he intended to pave the road this year. Mr. Dexter reported he previously spoke to Mr. Milano about maintaining the interior roads and fire hydrants however because they are privately owned, the City has no jurisdiction over it. Mr. Chuilli explained his access agreement allows him to pave the road if it is in bad condition and bill Mr. Milano for the cost. Mr. Chuilli explained he will lose this tenant if another month goes by because they are under a deadline to leave their current facility.
Mr. DiAngeles reported Marcus Dairy is a family owned business and they are moving their operation from Danbury, Connecticut to expand the space into retail operations. Beacon provides a better location for distribution routes because clients are from both New York and Connecticut. Marcus Dairy owner Bill Fichette reported they will receive product between 7-10 a.m., it will be prepared for loading, delivery trucks will return between 12-5 p.m., trucks will be loaded until midnight and refrigeration units will run until 6 a.m. when they leave the facility. Approximately ten 18-wheel tractor trailers will deliver on a daily basis. Mr. Chuilli reported the only time trucks had a problem crossing the railroad tracks is when the driver didn’t put up the dolly wheels. They will inform drivers of the site conditions however signage can’t be installed at the entrance because it is not Mr. Chuilli’s property. Mr. Chuilli reported the survival of these buildings rests on securing tenants; the area was developed in 1870 as an industrial site and it is difficult to find a tenant in today’s business climate. Mr. Fichette reported only local delivery trucks will travel through Beacon and all others will exit toward Interstate 84. There will be five trucks that cross the river to the Newburgh area and the remainder will travel into Connecticut. He had no plans to increase the fleet but if that occurred, there would only be a maximum of seven trucks running at the dock at once. Discussion returned to noise abatement measures and types of screening to lower noise levels for compliance. Ambient noise levels would reduce at night with less traffic.
There were no comments from the public and Mr. Gunn made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Members reviewed the Long Form EAF submitted for the project and the impact of idling trucks and refrigeration units was discussed. Truck engines will not run all night and thermal units run off electricity. With regard to air pollution, Mr. Fichette reported his company has passed all required DEP and environmental testing. On the advice of consultants and review of the environmental assessment form, Mr. Gunn made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration subject to mitigating sound levels first with planting vegetation, and then a physical barrier if necessary. Mr. Svetz seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant Site Plan Approval subject to minor comments outlined by the board consultants, implementation of noise control mitigation measures, and repair or repaving of the private road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer if Mr. Milano doesn’t do so by the end of the year. Mr. Svetz seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item No. 4
Review DEIS for Long Dock Beacon, hotel and conference facility,
submitted by Foss Group Beacon, Beacon Waterfront
Matt Rudikoff of MDR Associates and Marjorie Groten of Scenic Hudson were present to discuss the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Long Dock Beacon project on the riverfront. Mr. Rudikoff explained the FEIS outlines project changes since the project’s conception and responds to comments presented by the public, Planning Board and their consultants. The report reevaluates impacts, proposes corrective measures, and summarizes all issues identified as requiring more detail or explanation. The Lead Agency and its consultants will review the document to see if outstanding issues have been adequately addressed. Mr. Rudikoff reported board consultants have provided written comments for response.
Mr. Timmis explained more information is needed with regard to his review comments however traffic consultants have not yet reviewed the transportation section of the FEIS. He reported that work will begin next week in anticipation of having all remaining planning comments prepared within two weeks. Mr. Timmis wanted to be sure that coordination from all other involved agencies takes place. Mr. Rudikoff reported the MTA has a number of very important project components because they are providing alternate parking, and emergency and service access. Additionally, a courtesy van is planned to incorporate the use of the multi-modal facility. The revised FEIS will include many comments from the MTA. Mr. Rudikoff felt it beneficial that the transportation review had not yet begun because inadvertent errors impacted the overall report. Mr. Russo asked the applicant to revisit mitigation measures previously proposed to be sure they will adequately alleviate impacts. If a traffic signal is required, it would be the applicant’s responsibility. Based on the size and nature of the project, Mr. Russo reported a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted. Several other written comments were provided to the applicant.
Mr. Rudikoff spoke to MTA officials regarding parking arrangements for peak and overflow parking. Rather than taking away green land for parking, they felt it would be feasible to use a portion of the MTA parking lot for alternative parking. Mr. Rudikoff reported their peak times will be on weekends whereas Metro North’s peak use is during the week. The applicant will respond to comments provided and submit a revised FEIS for review.
Item No. 5
Continue review on application for Subdivision, 5 building lots,
submitted by Clark Gebman, Liberty Street
Mr. Sheers reported that as discussed at the last meeting, a memorandum was sent to the City Council regarding a land swap along Liberty Street. He said although discussion has taken place with the Mayor, a written response is currently being formalized. Mr. Gebman reported he had a conversation with Mayor Gold but did not come away with a clear understanding of the City’s position. Mr. Sheers advised Mr. Gebman to either continue preparing plans for his subdivision under the assumption that the City does not want to swap land along Liberty Street, or to wait for their written decision. Mr. Gebman had no objection to proceed without a response, but felt it would foreclose the City’s opportunity to change their mind. He felt sidewalks and curbing should be provided as part of his plan however pedestrian access would not be possible over the one-lane bridge. Mr. Sheers explained sidewalk installation is not necessary in that area because sidewalks don’t exist along that portion of Liberty Street. If sidewalks and curbs are provided, the standard 24 ft. front yard setback would not be affected and sidewalks would not be part of the right of way.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA process, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gebman felt market attraction of a house is achieved by maintaining grade level driveway access. He said that since a contiguous fill requirement is not necessary between houses, a “valley” between properties can be created however due to the deteriorating stone wall that exists along the street, Mr. Gebman felt it would be best to secure it with concrete and fill with one contiguous structure. Mr. Sheers asked Mr. Gebman to submit a detailed design plan for review. Mr. Gebman explained he did not want to embark on an engineering solution the board would not approve. He asked for a proper solution if the board chose not to accept voids between the front yards. Mr. Gebman reported the City already approved a methodology for the house proposed when the original lot was subdivided which consisted of a driveway and terraced front yard. He said the engineering solution consisted of concrete and a wall which he felt should apply universally for all five houses. Mr. Sheers explained the original approval was only for a two lot subdivision with one new house with the balance of land to remain vacant. Mr. Gebman contended the record shows he made representation that it would be a five or six lot subdivision. Mr. Russo explained the design plan for the new five lot subdivision application cannot be based on the original two lot subdivision and new engineering plans are needed for review. Mr. Gebman felt extenuating circumstances exist with regard to the retaining wall therefore asked the engineer to evaluate the condition of both the wall and street. Mr. Sheers believed the City was working on that and Mr. Gebman agreed to wait for their determination. Mr. Sheers advised Mr. Gebman that his next step in the approval process is to provide engineered drawings for review.
Item No. 6
Continue review on application for Subdivision, 10 building lots,
submitted by Clark Gebman, Stone Street
Before continuing with the project presentation, Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA process, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gebman said Jessen pond was created with the condition that the City would turn the storm water drainage facility into a connection to the Hudson River. He claimed the waterway that traverses Stone Street is no more than a stormwater drainage trench. Mr. Gebman reported the stream is not “rated” so it can be relocated or moved 20 ft. back to provide street frontage for new houses. He would provide the City with a legal easement so water flow could continue across his land. Mr. Gebman felt the project could be completed if the City would establish engineering parameters to determine the size and construction details needed to make a new waterway. He thought it would be unfair for an applicant to propose a design that would not solve the problem. Mr. Gebman indicated Councilmember Casale suggested creating a retention pond on the Hiddenbrooke property to help solve downstream water problems. Mr. Gebman said he could design the waterway for current conditions but doesn’t want to prepare a design that may be turned down by the City.
Mr. Gunn explained Mr. Gebman’s request is outside the Planning Board’s authority because it is a request the City Council needs to address. Mr. Gebman said if the City does not provide him with some type of feedback in the next two weeks with regard to their design parameters, he will create a design that provides for 25% more volume than currently exists. In response, Mr. Gunn said the Planning Board would not act on the premise of Mr. Gebman’s assertion.
City Attorney Wolf advised members the applicant may be asking questions that can’t be accurately responded to without adequate information to review. Mr. Gebman stated the City does not have the right allow water to pass over his land. Mr. Sheers told Mr. Gebman to design the project as is or negotiate the issue with the City Council. Mr. Gunn reminded Mr. Gebman that he must also address the paper street that exists on this property. Mr. Gebman thanked the Planning Board for their time and felt his issues may be better understood by Mayor Gold and Councilmember Kelly who were in attendance.
Item No. 7
Continue review of application for Subdivision (4 building lots),
submitted by Michael Benzer, 71 Maple Street
Mike Bodendorf of Hudson Land Design reported since last month’s meeting several changes were made to the proposed subdivision plat for his client Michael Benzer. The plan was revised to reflect the correct zoning and rear setback requirements, and as a result the houses were shortened by five feet. The driveway turnaround areas were improved and more details were added as requested by Mr. Russo. Mr. Bordendorf reported pre- and post-drainage analyses were done and drains will be tied into the existing storm drain system; the additional volume will not have an adverse impact on the system.
Mr. Timmis asked for details on the current use of the existing building. Owner Michael Benzer reported he and his wife have used the building as a glass studio since 1984 employing 3-6 staff members. In November a portion of the building was taken down thus reducing the size of the original structure by 10,000 sq. ft. The parking requirements are based on its use as an artist studio/workshop because it is not a manufacturing business. Mr. Benzer reported in 1929 the building was used as an icehouse, and subsequently used to make parts for boots. Since it is a non-conforming building and in the spirit of the new comprehensive master plan, it was their intention to reduce impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Timmis explained that based on the gross floor area, the parking lot is six parking spaces short of the requirement (18 required, 12 provided). Mr. Benzer reported they have available space on the east side but want to preserve green space and provide a buffer between the houses. Additional spaces can be land-banked as long as the plat indicates where parking could be created if needed. If the Building Inspector determines a need for additional parking, or complaints regarding parking are submitted or the number of employees increases, the applicant will be advised to create additional parking as discussed.
Mr. Timmis advised the applicant to reduce the width of the driveway back-up areas; the length is adequate. Discussion took place regarding possible screening along the rear property line to provide privacy for existing residents. Mr. Benzer said he was willing to install stockade fencing, therefore construction details and locations will be added to the subdivision plat. Mr. Timmis noted encroachments must be addressed – specifically a neighboring shed is located on the applicant’s property. Mr. Benzer reported the shed doesn’t have a foundation and the neighbor will be informed. Further discussion took place regarding a landscape buffer between the commercial building and the first house. After some consideration it was determined fencing will be installed along the rear of the new lots and on the eastern side; and vegetation will be planted between the commercial building and the first house.
Based on grading shown on the plans and proposed rim elevations of the yard basins, it appears drainage from the side yards will not be able to enter the yard basins which may create ponding. He asked the applicant to revise the grading and rim elevations of the yard basins to ensure proper drainage. If basements are not proposed for the new houses a note must be added to the subdivision plat. A copy of the maintenance agreement for the proposed drainage system along the front of the lots must be submitted and approved by the City Attorney. Discussion took place regarding the need for sidewalks. Mr. Benzer noted sidewalks along the street are sporadic and if they were installed in front of the new houses, they would not connect to another sidewalk.
There were no further comments and Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of April, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Gunn made a motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency in the SEQRA process, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item No. 8
Continue review of application for Subdivision, 3 residential lots,
submitted by Josephine Scadura, Knevels Avenue
Dennis Walden described his client’s proposal for a three lot subdivision of property located on the corner of Tioronda Avenue and Knevels Avenue. The entire parcel was divided into two lots a few years ago and this application separates Lot 2 into three parcels. An existing house will occupy Parcel A; Lots B and C will connect to the existing sewer line on Knevels Avenue and tie into the water main on Tioronda Avenue. Mr. Walden reported owners of Lots B and C will build the private road.
Mr. Russo recommended the applicant submit a new application and Full EAF since the project was last before the Planning Board in December of 2005. A portion of the existing driveway for Lot 2 is located outside of the existing easement therefore Mr. Russo recommended it be relocated to avoid encroachment onto Parcel C. Additionally, the easement must be altered to include the turnaround area if it is to remain in the proposed location. Plans should be referred to the Fire Department to make certain the proposed turnaround area is sufficient for maneuvering a fire truck. A drainage analysis must be submitted to determine impacts to the drainage line crossing under Tioronda Avenue. The starting location of a 10’ metal pipe on Parcel B should be determined to be sure its removal will not create a negative impact on the neighboring parcel. Any necessary easements must be obtained for the construction of the proposed retaining wall along the west side of the private road. Mr. Russo suggested providing walk-out basements or lower levels for the proposed homes to reduce the amount of grading necessary. Protective barriers may be necessary because the new driveways appear to have quick drop-offs.
Architectural
Review
1. 949 Wolcott
Avenue – Single Family Home (modification of previous approval)
Mr. Dexter presented a revised elevation drawing from Schoonmaker Homes for a proposed new single family house at 949 Wolcott Avenue. The applicant had already received approval however was asked to return with revised drawings if a bonus room was added above the garage. Mr. Dexter presented photographs of various houses within the neighborhood for review. It was noted that the previous approval did not call for a window on the side elevation. After careful consideration and discussion, Mr. Gunn made a motion to approve the submission on the condition that a window be added on the second floor level of west side elevation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
2. 436 Main
Street – Certificate of Appropriateness for Façade Modification
Mr. Dexter introduced building owner Richard Haber to present elevation drawings for building rehabilitation at 436 Main Street. Mr. Haber explained he purchased the building that was built in 1957 last year. After carefully reviewing the proposal, Mr. Gunn made a motion to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the façade modifications at 436 Main Street, plans drawn by Richard Haber Architects, dated March 11, 2008 as submitted, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
3. 101 Mountain
Lane – Single Family House
Mr. Dexter presented elevation drawings for a proposed single family house at 101 Mountain Lane, and photographs of various houses within the neighborhood. After reviewing the proposal and neighboring housing stock, Mr. Gunn made a motion to deny the proposal as submitted and offered the following suggestions: Take cues from neighboring buildings relative to the porch, provide a more appropriate scale of the porch in relation to the front elevation, and increase the diameter of the columns in relation to their height. The motion was seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Committee Reports
Mr. Svetz reported the proposed local law revising the fee charged in-lieu of providing required parking spaces on Main Street is on the City Council agenda for its first reading on Monday, March 17, 2008.
Mr. Gunn reported on his progress in creating a Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop more standardized architectural review guidelines.
Miscellaneous Business
Architectural Review
Mr. Sheers explained a recent architectural approval inspired the need to consider creating a deadline for architectural review submissions. Many times applicants submit information after the deadline, up to and including the day of the meeting, which does not allow time for listing on the agenda. Although architectural review is not open for public comments, neighbors should have the opportunity to know an item is on an agenda for consideration. Mr. Sheers proposed a two week submission deadline for architectural review items. Members agreed to require the same deadline as regular Planning Board applications for architectural review items. A lengthy discussion took place about creating a separate committee for architectural review that would meet at a time other than the Planning Board meeting. Mayor Gold supported developing a separate committee and felt it made sense to allow public comment on each submission.
Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Sheers appointed John Gunn as the Planning Board liaison for issues relating to the Comprehensive Plan.
There was no further business to discuss and Mr. Gunn made a motion to close the meeting, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.