Beacon City Planning Board

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. A workshop took place at 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting commenced at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs; Members Ed Sablinski, Spring Attaway and Jay Sheers; Alternate Member John Gunn; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; Deputy Building Inspector David Buckley; City Engineer John Russo (in for Art Tully) and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Members Vince Arquilla, Randall Williams, Tony Lassiter and Alternate Member Anne Rapalje were absent.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the May 10, 2005 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. A motion was made by Ms. Attaway, seconded by Mr. Sheers to approve the minutes as circulated. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SITE

PLAN APPROVAL, PARKING LOT, SUBMITTED BY SPRINGFIELD BAPTIST

CHURCH, 8 MATTIE COOPER SQUARE

Mr. Hibbs noted the public hearing notice was printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal

on June 8, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for Site Plan Approval for a parking lot, located on 8 Mattie Cooper Square, identified on City tax maps as Section 5954, Block 27, Lot 845957.

Dennis Walden outlined changes made to the parking lot plan since the last submission. The drainage system was redesigned utilizing a 16-inch pipe located down the street, lighting contours and fence details were added. Landscaping was shown but must be better identified.

Mr. Russo asked that a drainage analysis be done to show that the existing downstream drainage system can convey additional water into the system. Discussion took place regarding a manhole Mr. Walden believed was buried in the intersection and Mr. Russo advised him that a dye test may need to be done to check the flow. Although they plan to tie directly to the City’s storm drainage system, stormwater must be addressed under MS4 regulations for quality, not quantity. Mr. Russo advised them to determine where the roof leaders feed into. A clearer, larger scale grading plan and construction details for road restoration, catch basins, trench cross sections, etc. must be provided.

Mr. Stolman asked that the photometric contours be better identified. Additionally, sizes of landscape materials and shrub species must be provided.

Connie Robert Blankley, 12 Mattie Cooper Square, lives two doors away from the church which has been there for many years. Her driveway has never been blocked by other vehicles, the parishioners are polite and she understands they are trying to relieve the community from some of the parking problem. She supported their parking lot proposal.

Victor Naguiat, 2 Mattie Cooper Square, felt they should use the nearby municipal lot rather than build another in a residential zone. He complained that parishioner’s park too close to a nearby stop sign. Mr. Naguiat felt they would not get 30 spaces in the lot and that it would create problems in the future. He asked why they tore down a house to create a parking lot. Overall, he was against constructing a parking lot.

Mr. Hibbs noted Aida Mandigo, 10 Mattie Cooper Square, submitted a letter in support of the proposed parking lot.

Church representative, Ralph Middleton, said a woman representing a group of neighbors planned to attend the meeting to express their support for the project. They were supposedly willing to put in landscaping/shrubbery on their own. Reverend Perry reported many issues raised at the last meeting had more to do with personal issues, not the parking lot. They are trying to meet with neighbors to work out unrelated issues.

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

After some discussion, Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant a negative SEQRA declaration and grant Site Plan Approval for the parking lot subject to fulfilling outstanding consultant comments enumerated above, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2

LOTS, SUBMITTED BY FERDINAND & SUSANNE METZ, 8 SLOCUM ROAD

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal

on June 8, 2005 and opened the public hearing an application for Subdivision of property (2 residential lots) owned by Ferdinand & Susanne Metz, located on 8 Slocum Road, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 5954, Block 20, Lot 7701855.

Richard Cantor of Cantor, Teahan and Constantino, explained his client revised the subdivision plat based on comments presented at last month’s meeting. The new driveway will be over the existing driveway, via a permanent easement, extending to the new home. Trees were identified and the driveway description was clarified.

Dennis Swindell, 15 High Goal Lane, said he would be most impacted by this proposal. He chose this area due to the larger lot sizes and open space. He paid a premium price for his property due to the river view before this development was proposed. Mr. Swindell had no objection to Mr. Metz building a home for his son and daughter-in-law however felt the new residence could become a corporate venture or Bed & Breakfast if sold in the future. He expressed concerns about placing a septic tank adjacent to his property. The topography is hilly and there is only a small area flat enough to build on. He asked where the septic tank and leach field would be located, how far it will expand and what type of environmental impact it would have. Mr. Russo explained a septic design is in place, Health Department approval is needed and the leach field will be nearly 25 ft. from the property line. Mr. Walden pointed out the septic/field on the subdivision plat.

Mr. Stolman explained Bed & Breakfast facilities are permitted with a Special Use Permit in all residential zoning districts as long as they have 40,000 sq. ft. of land. He listed a number of additional uses permitted in residential districts as outlined in the City’s Schedule of Use Regulations. Special Use Permit applications are reviewed by the Planning Board and issued by the City Council once they determine the use is appropriate to the area. Mr. Hibbs explained the Planning Board is reviewing this subdivision application to be sure it meets regulations related to zoning, drainage, easements, access, etc. Mr. Swindell acknowledged the Metz’s right to develop their property but outlined his concern for the leach field and quality of life issues. Mr. Russo explained the leach field is completely underground, size is determined by the use and number of bedrooms and Health Department approval is required. Based upon the topography of the land, Mr. Russo explained the leach field will not lie alongside Mr. Swindell’s property. Additionally, regulations require dedication of an area of property equivalent in size so an alternate leach field can be created in the event the original fails. The quality of drinking water quality will not be compromised because Mr. Swindell is served by municipal water. Offensive odors don’t typically arise and if they do, the situation must be remedied by developing a new system. Mr. Hibbs explained after sitting in a holding tank, leachate is released downward via a number of pipes and evaporates into the atmosphere. Mr. Swindell asked why the proposed house dimensions were not provided. Mr. Stolman explained the house must be constructed within the building setbacks shown on the plan. They are constrained by the leach field, driveway and topography. The house style will be subject to architectural review.

Mike Morales, 3 High Goal Lane, reported Polo Fields have deed restrictions prohibiting Bed & Breakfast facilities and asked if this property has the same restriction. City Attorney Pisanelli recalled a previous application for a Bed & Breakfast facility was before the Board however the subject is not an issue before the board at this time. Mr. Morales asked if the 10 ft. wide easement that runs along his property and two adjacent lots could be revoked since access to the new parcel will be secured by a driveway. After much discussion about the purpose of the easement, Mr. Stolman explained the easement is not on the Metz property and cannot be revoked by the Planning Board.

Fadi Ghanem, 9 High Goal Lane, believed the easement was established for construction purposes and that it was only temporary. He supported the subdivision and felt there would be no problems once construction in the area is complete.

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

Mr. Cantor confirmed that his client is aware of the new specifications for common/shared driveways and has no objection to complying with the contents of the proposed provisions. Mr. Russo explained Health Department approval must be obtained; the maintenance agreement and cross easement documentation must be provided to the City Attorney for approval.

After some discussion, Ms. Attaway made a motion to grant a negative SEQRA declaration for the proposed subdivision; grant preliminary subdivision plat approval; waive the public hearing for the final subdivision plat based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same, and grant conditional final subdivision plat approval subject to fulfilling consultant comments enumerated above, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, DAY CARE FACILITY, SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY OWNER MARK

DEFABIO, 1064 WOLCOTT AVENUE (ROSE HILL MANOR DAY SCHOOL)

Mr. Hibbs read the public hearing notice printed in the Poughkeepsie Journal

on June 8, 2005 and opened the public hearing relative to an application for a Special Use Permit for a day care facility, submitted by Mark DeFabio owner of Rose Hill Manor, located on 1064 Wolcott Avenue, identified on City tax maps as Section 5954, Block 34, Lot 641767.

Charles Brown, engineer from Taconic Design, described the proposal to construct an additional two-story building adjacent to the existing day care facility on a 1.75 acre parcel located at 1064 Wolcott Avenue. Drainage is being handled with gravel beds so water is allowed to dissipate into the soil. In addition to existing parking, 15 spaces have been added and the new building meets all setback requirements. Mr. Brown reported most technical issues have been addressed, and the easement for sewer and water services will be formalized. A colored elevation drawing showing colors and proposed signage was presented.

Mr. Russo reported a number of engineering comments still need to be addressed and specific concern was raised with regard to the infiltration system located at the top of an embankment. Mr. Brown explained they are roughly 15 ft. away from where the embankment drops off and the trench has been reduced to a depth of 1.5 ft. Mr. Russo advised him to provide a cross section for review and the location of two trench details shown on Sheet 3 of 4 must be defined. Additionally, plans provided did not include Sheet 4 of 4 and Sheet 3 lacked details on the stormwater management system as noted.

Mr. Stolman requested more information on outdoor lighting, specifically details to show that light will not spill onto neighboring property. Mr. DeFabio explained he is trying to obtain details on the low-intensity lighting fixtures chosen and Mr. Brown stated lighting will not spill over the property line. Mr. Stolman asked that a note indicating the building will be provided with a sprinkler system be added to the plan. A revised sign detail and elevation color details are also needed.

Marty King, 530 Harbor View Court, lives directly behind the day care facility. He was concerned about adding signage to slow vehicles down since this will add more children near busy Route 9D. As a retired nurse experienced in facility expansions, he expressed concern for updated evacuation plans. Mr. King asked what the adult-to-child ratio was and whether staff was adequately trained. He also expressed concern for the possible loss of mature trees.

Mr. DeFabio said very few trees will be affected and the tree line behind the school will remain. The school is regulated and inspected by the Health Department and Office of Family Services. Family Services performs three inspections per year, the Health Department performs two inspections per year and the Building Department conducts annual safety inspections. Their alarm system is tied directly to the Fire Department and they prepare for catastrophic situations by practicing evacuation to the nearby fire house. In response to traffic control lights, Mr. DeFabio explained his parking lot is well lit and the state governs traffic control lighting. Mr. Buckley reported he has never witnessed a problem at their intersection and the center lane provides space for safe turns into the site. Mr. DeFabio noted the Police Department monitors speeding and quite often pulls offenders over near his property. He explained children are always supervised and counts are taken each time they exit or enter the fenced outdoor play area. Mr. DeFabio reported they thoroughly screen and conduct background checks on every employee before hire. A copy of the Site Plan and project proposal will be sent to the Traffic Safety Committee for review and comment.

Aashraf Kandeel, Season’s on the Hudson restaurant at 3 Beekman Street, has owned the restaurant for six years. He noted graduations take place 3-4 times a year and over 90 cars fill his parking lot, crowd the street in front of his restaurant and park on the sidewalk during these events. Mr. Kandeel reported he is forced to direct traffic because it is dangerous. He asked if the proposal provided adequate parking and Mr. Stolman responded that 31 off-street parking spaces are required and the proposal provides 35 spaces. Mr. Kandeel asked whether the school is licensed under Mr. DeFabio’s name or an employee’s name and if staff was adequately trained. Mr. Kandeel reported his children were mistreated by Mr. DeFabio’s employees therefore felt the school does not provide a quality service to the community.

In response, Mr. DeFabio agreed that a number of people attend their holiday and graduation parties. At one time there was an agreement with the restaurant owner to share parking lots when needed, however at some point that arrangement ended. Mr. DeFabio explained that once he realized the parking agreement had been terminated, he advised clients to discontinue using the restaurant parking lot. Ms. Attaway explained her child attends Rose Hill Manor and confirmed that every invitation is accompanied with a note advising parents not to utilize the restaurant’s parking lot. Mr. DeFabio acknowledged that parking is a problem during peak events and although the Police Department has assisted in the past, sometimes they are too busy. He explained after this construction, such events will be held in smaller groups. Mr. DeFabio explained the Rose Hill facility has many rules and regulations, they run a very stringent operation and he noted that some non-conforming people object to the structure and conformance requirements they uphold.

Sarah Rafferty, 532 Harbor View Court, asked where the utility easement would be located since her property is most directly affected. Mr. DeFabio pointed out the location and explained an easement has been obtained from an adjacent neighbor. There will be no need to remove trees because the ditch is smaller than the actual easement. Mr. DeFabio explained they will limit inconvenience to neighboring property owners by completing work within one to two days – during business hours only.

Mr. Gunn, whose daughter attends Rose Hill Manor, offered Mr. DeFabio his assistance with designing a floor plan that creates a positive learning environment.

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

Ms. Attaway made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a Special Use Permit for the Rose Hill Manor Day Care Facility, subject to the applicant returning to the Planning Board for final site plan review, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 4 CONSIDER EXTENSION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY, MEADOW RIDGE II, MATTEAWAN ROAD – SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRANTED APRIL 2004

Peg O’Leary from Hudson Valley Housing Development Fund Company explained federal financing for their senior housing project was unexpectedly delayed therefore have not applied for a building permit as required. She reported the financing process will be completed within six weeks. Construction documents are complete so they are prepared to move forward as soon as funding is approved. Ms. O’Leary explained the proposal continues to be 52 units of senior housing; each member of the household must be age 62 and older. The only change since the original approval in April of 2004 is that renters will be required to pay Central Hudson for electric lighting and cooking, otherwise Central Hudson will not pay for trenching. Ms. O’Leary said they would be asking the Building Department to allow them to begin site work during the financing approval process. They hope to start construction in September of this year or sooner. Ms. Attaway asked what would happen if anticipated financing did not come through. The applicant is obligated to file for a building permit application within one year of the issuance of a Special Use Permit, otherwise approval expires. Mr. Dexter explained the Special Use Permit expiration provision is new to the code and this situation is unique in that construction has not begun. As a result, the City will consider an amendment to provide extensions however the applicant must now go back through the approval process which includes public hearings at both the Planning Board and City Council level. If approved, the City Council will issue a new Special Use Permit.

Mr. Sheers made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of July, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 5 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2

LOTS, SUBMITTED BY THOMAS NINNIE, WILSON STREET

Dennis Walden explained his client received an excavation permit to remove rock from the site; one house has been constructed and he now wants to subdivide the parcel into two separate lots. The property is located in the R1-10 zoning district; Lot #1 is 13,065 sq. ft. and Lot #2 is 16,225 sq. ft. The plan was updated to reflect existing topography and updates were made to the EAF form as requested. Mr. Walden explained the footprint of the proposed house was moved forward in conformance with the remainder of houses on the street.

Mr. Russo asked that erosion control methods be updated and site distance information be added to the plan. The turn-around provided for Lot #2 should be shifted further away from the house, and water and sewer hook up locations must be provided.

Mr. Stolman informed the applicant that each lot should be provided with a 30 ft. back yard. He explained this application was previously before the board and after being informally withdrawn before completing the subdivision, the owner secured a building permit for one house. If the original subdivision had been completed, larger back yards would have been required for each parcel. Mr. Walden explained the owner has been removing rock over the years in order to create space for larger yards. Grading around each house, first floor and lowest sewerable elevations must be provided.

Ms. Attaway made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of July, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 6 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION &

SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-UNIT HOUSING, SUBMITTED BY EAST

MAIN MILLS/CHURCHILL MILLS, LLC, ONE EAST MAIN STREET

Mr. Hibbs recused himself from this item as he has done business with the applicant; Mr. Sheers chaired the meeting.

Ted Liebman, of Liebman Melting Architects & Planners, introduced colleagues Alan Melting and Shawn Flynn. Mr. Liebman explained an updated summary for the EAF was submitted for review and comment. Mr. Stolman advised them that in addition to submitted schematic drawings, a comprehensive Site Plan with detailed information must be submitted before detailed review can begin. Mr. Liebman reported they are in the process of putting together elevations to better scale the buildings. He said parking facilities provide 9 ft. x 18 ft. parking spaces with 24 ft. aisles typical of parking garages. Mr. Stolman advised him that the City’s zoning code requires 10 ft. x 20 ft. parking spaces and a layout with wheel stops must be provided. Mr. Liebman thought 9 ft. x 18 ft. parking spaces would be adequate for this type of indoor facility. Mr. Stolman explained the Planning Board cannot vary from what is required in the zoning code however application could be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals to adjust those requirements. He asked if the plan would meet the specific parking requirement of one space per unit plus one-quarter space per bedroom. Shawn Flynn clarified that there are a total of 245 off-street parking spaces and believed 220 are required. The apartments in the complex are lofts that vary in size – small units are 800 sq. ft. and larger units are upwards to 2,000 sq. ft. The number of required parking spaces was based on bedroom values for each loft, i.e. a small loft equals a one-bedroom apartment, a medium loft equals a two-bedroom apartment, and a large loft equals a three-bedroom apartment. Mr. Stolman advised the applicant to thoroughly review the City’s zoning code to determine information needed for a complete Site Plan submission.

ITEM NO. 7 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT,

ACCESSORY APARTMENT, 47 SOUTH AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY JOHN

GUNN

Mr. Hibbs returned to chair the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Gunn recused himself from this item as it is his application.

Aryeh Siegal, representing John Gunn, described his client’s proposal to renovate an existing carriage house at 47 South Avenue into an accessory apartment. He applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for two variances that are needed for the project to move forward – one for a rear yard setback and one for the apartment which is 1,150 sq. ft. exceeds the maximum size of 650 sq. ft. No exterior work is needed, and interior work includes the installation of a new bath. The building has been used as guest house for the larger home and is served with plumbing and electric. Mr. Stolman advised the applicant that as outlined in Section 223.24.1(D), the City Council may permit a smaller or larger accessory apartment, where appropriate, when located in an accessory building built prior to August 1, 1989. Therefore, he explained the applicant has the option of deferring the apartment size to the City Council rather than seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He asked that shading on the Site Plan be removed and that the size of the apartment be listed. Information indicating who developed the plan and a note that one of the structures will be owner occupied must be added to the plan. Mr. Stolman noted the driveway layout may be impractical so he asked that the layout be revisited.

Mr. Siegal respectfully requested the Board consider making a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Board members reviewed the lot layout, history of the property and discussed the request. Since the accessory building (and home) was built in 1883 as part of an estate and has been continually used as a guest house for the larger home, Councilmember Attaway made a motion to forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in support of the requested variances, seconded by Mr. Sablinski. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Attaway made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of July, subject to the applicant receiving the necessary side yard setback variance, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 8 CONTINUE REVIEW FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR

SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 149 MAIN STREET, PROPERTY OWNED BY RONALD

PICCONE

Owner Jamie Piccone explained after meeting with Tim Dexter, a new layout was created to better accommodate parking needs. With regard to site lighting, Mr. Stolman said the plan must clearly indicate that there will be no more than a half-foot candle at the property line. Mr. Russo asked that the sheet for storm drainage be listed as “Sheet 4 of 4” and that print be made larger to make it easier to read. Construction details as they relate to storm drainage, i.e. trench details, catch basin installation, etc., must be added to the plan. Mr. Russo advised Mr. Siegal to coordinate his plan with the engineering plan. Lastly, information regarding the adequacy of existing storm water system capacity must be provided.

After some discussion, Ms. Attaway made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration and grant Site Plan Approval subject to the applicant fulfilling outstanding consultant comments enumerated above, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 9 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ARTIST LIVE/WORK SPACE, 5 NORTH WALNUT STREET, SUBMITTED BY DENISE SMITH

Aryeh Siegal, representing Denise Smith, described his client’s proposal to convert the existing single family house into an artist live/work space. Two parking spaces are required – one space is provided on the property and one space is reserved in the adjacent parking lot via an easement dated March 10, 2004. A small sign is proposed adjacent to the front door. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not needed because the property is not located in the historical overlay district.

Mr. Stolman asked for a table showing both proposed and required information as outlined in Section 223.24.3 as inserted on the Site Plan. He asked that the Site Plan show the sign location and memorialize the building façade, including colors. Ms. Smith indicated she would be creating/selling decorative items and objects in adherence with the Artist Live/Work law. Mr. Stolman asked that a narrative indicating the types of items that will be created and sold on site.

Mr. Sheers made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of July, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 10 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL,

RESTAURANT FACILITY, 236-240 MAIN STREET, SUBMITTED BY BEACON

TERMINAL ASSOCIATES

Aryeh Siegal presented his client’s proposal for a restaurant “Restaurant O” at

236-240 Main Street. He explained a Site Plan Approval is required because it is a change of use from retail to a restaurant. The rear parking lot accessed from a right-of-way off North Walnut Street, provides 12 off-street parking spaces. A total of 17 spaces are required, therefore an application has been submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Stolman provided a brief history of the property owned by Beacon Terminal Associates. The Planning Board approved a subdivision last year and Parcel A, which had been attached to 5 North Walnut Street, was transferred to Lot #1. Mr. Stolman explained the property line shown between Parcel A and Lot #1 was dissolved therefore should not be shown on the Site Plan. He said the purpose of that subdivision was to take Parcel A, which had been part of Lot #2 (5 North Walnut), and attach it to 236-240 Main Street now shown as Lot #1. Mr. Stolman advised the applicant to show documentation and easements as they exist. Additionally, the parking space and back up area reserved for use by 5 North Walnut Street should be clearly indicated. The Site Plan also indicates that two parking spaces are used by 242-244 Main Street which is also owned by Beacon Terminal Associates. After much discussion with Bill Ehrlic, Mr. Stolman advised them to determine the parking requirements for the 242-244 Main Street building before going to the Zoning Board of Appeals to be sure the count is accurate. He asked that building addresses be clearly marked on the plan.

Ms. Attaway made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of July subject to the applicant receiving the necessary variances, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 11 CONTINUE REVIEW ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2

LOTS, SUBMITTED BY ARNOLD RESTIVO, RALPH STREET

Eugene Ninnie, Civil Technologies, presented the plat for a two lot subdivision of property on Ralph Street, owned by Arnold Restivo. As the new design professional for engineering the project, he contacted Mr. Tully’s office to obtain a list of past comments. The sewer tie-in for the proposed single family house was located on the plan, grading information was improved and a slight swale between both houses was created for drainage. The proposed house will be slab on grade and modular construction with no need for footing drains. Site line distances were noted on the plan. A common curb cut will serve both driveways. Easements necessary for passage over each parcel were provided and landscaping was added as requested.

Mr. Stolman advised the applicant that sight distance requirements are off by approximately 25 ft. He felt the fence, hedges and on-street parking may be a factor in obstructing sight distance. They could petition the Traffic Safety Commission to consider prohibiting parking along that portion of the street to help the situation. Mr. Stolman explained the project cannot be approved without achieving the appropriate sight distance. Mr. Stolman advised Mr. Ninnie to consult with one of the traffic engineers in his office.

Miscellaneous Business

1. City Council request to review and comment on proposed Local Law amending

Chapter 223 - Zoning, and Chapter 195 – Subdivision of Land with respect to Private Roads, Driveways and Common Driveways

Board members reviewed proposed private road, driveway and common driveway legislation currently under consideration by the City Council. After a lengthy review and discussion with City Planner David Stolman, City Engineer John Russo and Tim Dexter, members unanimously agreed that the intent and content of the law made good planning sense. Ms. Attaway made a motion to recommend City Council proceed with enacting the proposed legislation, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

2. Certificate of Appropriateness – 396 Main Street - Awning

Members reviewed colors and materials for a retractable awning at 396 Main Street, Nichol’s Hardware Store. After much debate and consideration , Ms. Attaway made a motion to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed awning, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

3. Single Family Home Architectural Review: Lot #9, Delavan Avenue

Members reviewed elevation drawings and colors for a new single family dwelling on Delavan Avenue. After much debate and consideration , Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the proposal as presented, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Approved.

4. Single Family Home Architectural Review: Lot #8, Delavan Avenue

Members reviewed elevation drawings and colors for a new single family dwelling on Delavan Avenue. After much debate and consideration, Ms. Attaway made a motion to deny the proposal as presented because it was too similar to adjacent houses, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Not approved.

5. Single Family Home Architectural Review: 41 Eliza Street

Members reviewed elevation drawings and colors for a new single family dwelling at 41 Eliza Street. After much debate and consideration, Mr. Sheers made a motion to approve the proposal as presented, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Approved.

6. Single Family Home Architectural Review: 41 Cliff Street

Members reviewed elevation drawings and colors for a new single family dwelling at 41 Cliff Street. After much debate and consideration, Ms. Attaway made a motion to deny the proposal as presented because it was too dissimilar to adjacent houses, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Not approved.

There was no further business and Ms. Attaway made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.