Beacon City Planning Board

October 11, 2005

The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The regular meeting commenced at 7:05 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs; Members Spring Attaway, Jay Sheers, Randall Williams and Anne Rapalje; Alternate Members John Gunn and Mike Lanari; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; City Engineer Art Tully; City Planner David Stolman; and City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli in attendance. Member Tony Lassiter was absent.

Chairman Hibbs requested a moment of silence to pay tribute to Ed Sablinski who passed away last week. His many years of dedication to the City of Beacon as a member of the Planning Board member and his life work will endure well into the future. The Board’s prayers and thoughts are with his family.

Chairman Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the September 13, 2005 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. A motion was made by Mr. Sheers, seconded by Ms. Attaway to approve the minutes as circulated. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, 2

RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PAGGI, MARTIN & DELBENE, LLP,

97 VERPLANCK AVENUE

Mr. Hibbs announced the public hearing notice was printed in the Poughkeepsie

Journal on October 5, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for a Subdivision of property (2 residential lots) owned by Robert Alfonso, located on 97 Verplanck Avenue, identified on City Tax Maps as Section 5954, Block 28, Lot 958972.

Engineer Ernst Martin described the proposal for a two lot subdivision of property at 97 Verplanck Avenue. The residential lots, approximately 7,700 sq. ft., will be accessed from a common driveway off Melio Bettina Place.

Mr. Stolman explained the bulk table must be modified in terms of setbacks and minimum lot depth. The plat should show all required setbacks and building envelopes. Information on adjacent house setbacks relative to Sections 223.13(j), and Section 223.13(k) of the zoning code which addresses setbacks for corner lots and house alignment must be provided on the plan. Sight distance information for the proposed driveway is required. The legal access and utility easement for Lot #1 over Lot #2 must be provided to the City Attorney for his review and approval; and the plat must also indicate that the easement will be in favor of Lot #1.

Mr. Tully asked that the plan show the curb cut for the former driveway off Verplanck Avenue will be removed and replaced with a normal curb and sidewalk. The applicant will continue to work on the remaining comments listed in Mr. Tully’s memo dated September 12, 2005.

Flora Jones, 36 Melio Bettina Place, reported her house is across the street from the subject property. She supported new housing and was pleased that driveway access will not be from Verplanck Avenue. Ms. Jones expressed concern about the Piccone project (former Brunetto Cheese) because they have traumatized her over the last four years. She asked how tall the proposed houses will be. Mr. Martin provided a sketch of the new two-story Colonial style structures and explained they must be approved by the architectural review committee. Ms. Jones asked that they be cautious near the adjacent cemetery which is very old and historical in nature.

Mr. Martin examined adjacent houses to determine appropriate front yard setbacks for the new houses. Many houses in the area are very close to the street therefore he felt 15 ft. front yard setbacks would be appropriate. Discussion took place whether those setbacks would provide adequate sight distance when exiting from Melio Bettina Place onto Verplanck Avenue. In addition to establishing a sight easement on the corner lot, Mr. Tully and Mr. Stolman asked that sight distance measurements be provided to determine the appropriateness of 15 ft. front yard setbacks. Mr. Tully reported information on the plat had not changed much from the September meeting therefore advised the applicant return to the November meeting with additional information.

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

ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, BAR ESTABLISHMENT/RESIDENTIAL (CHANGE OF USE FROM

PRIVATE CLUB), SUBMITTED BY BEACON TERMINAL ASSOCIATES,

217 MAIN STREET

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

on October 5, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for a Special Use Permit, for a bar establishment and residential space, submitted by Beacon Terminal Associates, property located at 217 Main Street, identified on City tax maps as Section 5954, Block 27, Lot 823922.

Aryeh Siegel, representing Beacon Terminal Associates, described their proposal to change the building at 217 Main Street from a private club into a bar establishment on the ground floor with residential use on the second floor. The Main Street façade will be renovated and the remainder of changes will take place within the interior of the building. He reported no additional parking is required based on the use of the building in 1964.

Mr. Stolman noted that at the last meeting, discussion took place regarding the rear access which also serves the adjacent building, and asked how the area behind the subject parcel will be used. The proposed solution shown on the plan was to install a “no parking” sign so the area will not be used as a parking lot at the owner’s request. Mr. Stolman felt the very long dirt driveway would be inappropriate for this commercial operation. He asked how refuse would be navigated down the drive to DeWindt Street considering the large amount of bottles and waste that will be generated from the use. Mr. Siegel explained they would use wheeled carts however the driveway is narrow and cannot be gated because it is used for access to the adjacent lot. Ultimately, Mr. Stolman explained, the Planning Board is obligated to confirm that the proposed commercial use will operate appropriately. Much discussion took place regarding trash disposal, the purpose of providing a fenced enclosure to screen the garbage and concern for the number of cans that will be placed on the residential DeWindt Street area. A possible solution was to make private arrangements with Royal Carting for additional cans and scheduled pick ups, and garbage containers be taken through the building and placed on Main Street for pick up.

Elenore Thompson, 428 River Street and Councilmember, received 15 calls from Main Street and surrounding neighborhood residents – all of whom were against a bar establishment. Ms. Thompson explained there are three churches nearby and thought a law prevented establishing a bar within a certain distance. Ms. Thompson was pleased that the building would be renovated, but strongly opposed a bar establishment.

Mr. Stolman explained the Planning Board’s role is advisory because only the City Council can issue a Special Use Permit. The need for a Special Use Permit in this case is triggered by the proposed residential use, places serving food or beverages are not subject to Special Use Permits in the Central Business zoning district. Site Plan Approval would be required to address issues of parking, signage, etc., not necessarily the use.

Mr. Stolman explained the City’s zoning code does not establish a required distance between a bar establishment and a church. A liquor license is required and the liquor board determines what level of alcohol can be served.

Flora Jones, 36 Melio Bettina Place, felt a pub would not be appropriate on the west end of Main Street which is undergoing a favorable redevelopment. There is a nearby restaurant, historical Springfield Baptist Church, a new clock donated by Digger Phelps’ family, etc. and a bar does not fit into the overall vision set for this area of Main Street. Ms. Jones felt a bar would lead to loitering, noise and fights on Main Street. She urged the Board to consider appropriate development for Beacon.

Ms. Thompson believed someone approached the City Council years ago to open a bar in the same location and they were told it would not be approved due to the proximity of local churches. She would rather see a health food store or similar operation occupy the building.

Andrew Whitener, 213 Main Street representing Norbeh Hall, reported they had many problems in the past and continue to have problems with loitering in the area. Norbeh Hall once owned the building and when they opened their private club to the public, a great deal of trouble resulted. He has taken steps over the last two years to change the character of the area and creating a bar will deter the progress already made. Mr. Whitener added his concern that their residential tenants will be adversely affected. He asked for assurance that the rear access would not be blocked.

Mr. Hibbs read the following letters regarding the project into the record.

I received the attached notice that Beacon Terminal Associates is applying for a Special Use Permit to open a bar at 217 Main Street, Beacon, New York. With this letter I strongly voice my opposition to said action. I feel this would be completely out of character for this area. Over the past several months I have invested considerable sums of money in the renovation of store fronts at 201 Main Street, 203 Main Street, 205 Main Street, 207 Main Street, 209 Main Street and 211 Main Street. I did this by staying within the City of Beacon’s requests and intentions to enhance the appearance and stability of the west end, as have several adjoining property owners.

I am of the opinion that this particular area has shown a marked improvement compared to what it was in years gone by. We do not have vagrants, drug dealers or any other people that would be considered a detriment to this area. The opening of a bar where one never was can only detract and downgrade what the current property owners have invested heavily in and worked so hard to enhance. In close proximity to the proposed bar, you have the local branch of the M&T Bank, whose open parking lot would most likely turn into a giant porta-potty for the clientele of this bar. Also, in close proximity you also have two houses of worship and the Dutchess County office building.

I can speak for the above first hand, having renovated a 64 unit apartment complex at 210 Main Street in the City of Poughkeepsie. Very soon after this area was enhanced, a bar was opened at 206 Main Street. This was to be a “class act” operation, drawing on the new population in the area. However, when this failed to happen it became a bar where many altercations both on Main Street and in the parking lot across the street took place. It became so bad that the City of Poughkeepsie saw fit to close it down as undesirable. The above can be verified I am sure by City of Poughkeepsie and the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department. I would not like to have to go through this again in the City of Beacon.

I feel that the City of Beacon has enhanced itself greatly since the opening of DIA and can see nothing positive coming of the opening of a bar at 217 Main Street.

Ronald J. Piccone, On the Square Apartments

8 Eliza Street, P.O. Box 391

Beacon, New York

I am once more writing my displeasure with the proposed opening of a bar at 217 Main Street. I express this opinion as the owner of property of 129-137 Main Street, 134 Main Street, 142-146 Main Street, 148-158 Main Street and 154-145 Main Street. I am currently converting store front apartments into commercial uses in accordance with all City of Beacon mandates.

I feel the opening of a bar and the consequences that may expel from it can only lead to a downgrading of this area, and as such, keep prospective customers away from these newly opened businesses. I think you as the Planning Board must keep steering the City of Beacon in the right direction and the opening of a bar at 217 Main Street would be a serious misstep to this end.

Ronald J. Piccone, On the Square Apartments

8 Eliza Street, P.O. Box 391

Beacon, New York

Thomas Sims, representing his mother Barbara Sims and owner of 213 Main Street, expressed concerns about noise and unwanted late night activities that may result from a bar establishment. When the club was operating before, the parking lot and restaurant area were a mess every morning. Mr. Sims worried it would have a negative impact on residential tenants who have been living there for ten years and they would like to keep them. He felt it would be wrong to allow a bar in the area.

A great deal of debate and discussion took place regarding modifying the application since a specific tenant has not been secured. City Attorney Pisanelli said the public hearing could be held open to see if the applicant wanted to modify the proposal. Mr. Gunn advised them to talk to the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee regarding uses that may better surpass the test of time and be successful beyond the short term. The general consensus was to hold the public hearing open for the month of November.

ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, ARTIST LIVE/WORK SPACE, SUBMITTED BY PETER O’KENNEDY,

3 WATER STREET

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

October 5, 2005 and opened the public hearing on the application for a Special Use Permit, for an Artist Live/Work space, submitted by Peter O’Kennedy, property located at 3 Water Street, identified on City tax maps as Section 6054, Block 38, Lot 170722.

Aryeh Siegel described the proposal to change the use of the building at 3 Water Street from a service business to an Artist Live/Work space. Most work will take place on the interior and the exterior will have new windows, siding and a rear deck constructed. Mr. Stolman reported all information requested at the last meeting has been provided and no outstanding concerns remain.

There were no 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.

Ms. Attaway made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a Special Use Permit for the project subject, with no need for the applicant to return to the Planning Board for final site plan approval, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 4 CONTINUE REVIEW FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL,

APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, RESIDENTIAL/RETAIL,

SUBMITTED BY 544 MAIN STREET, LLC, 542-544 MAIN STREET

Aryeh Siegel and owner Stacy Shurgin reported the City Council granted a Special Use Permit for the building renovation at 544 Main Street and drawings were updated to reflect comments from the last meeting. The easement agreement was submitted to the City Attorney for review but the written description was not provided on the map. Ms. Shurgin provided a copy of the survey with the description information she obtained just before the meeting.

Mr. Tully asked that all the information on the survey be added to the site plan. Otherwise he noted only a few minor comments remain, mostly construction details, which can be readily addressed.

After some discussion, Ms. Rapalje made a motion to grant final site plan approval subject to fulfilling comments outlined by the consultants; and to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness subject to providing the architectural review committee with color chips of the proposed color scheme. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 5 CONTINUE REVIEW ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, ACCESSORY APARTMENT, 47 SOUTH AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY

JOHN GUNN

John Gunn recused himself from this item as it is his application. This application was reviewed and the easement issue raised by an adjacent property owner was cleared. After a brief discussion, Mr. Williams made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a Special Use Permit for the project subject, with no need for the applicant to return to the Planning Board for final site plan approval, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 6 CONTINUE REVIEW FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL,

APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ARTIST LIVE/WORK SPACE,

SUBMITTED BY TALLIX COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM, LLC, 310

FISHKILL AVENUE

Matt Rudikoff, representing Tallix Commercial Condominium, LLC, reported the City Council granted a Special Use Permit for the Artist Live/Work space on the Tallix site. Mr. Rudikoff reported the plan was revised to include speed bumps, curbing corrected, and future (39) and actual (141) parking spaces were demonstrated.

To clear up confusion, Mr. Stolman explained this application is an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit and site plan for the Protetch Artist Live/Work space. This application provides changes and encumbers all specific uses on site. Mr. Stolman noted the number of parking spaces for the café changed and is five spaces short of the required amount. The plan must demonstrate that a total of 44 parking spaces can be constructed in the future if needed. The parking requirement table is incorrect because 112 spaces are listed as both existing and proposed.

Mr. Stolman agreed with the installation of one or two speed bumps on the private roadway however questioned the appropriateness of a speed bump on Main Street in the public thoroughfare. Automatic gates were part of the prior Protech approval but it was unclear at the time that they were located on public property. After a lengthy discussion regarding a solution, it was recommended that the applicant seek to take over that portion of public property through an agreement with the City. Mr. Tully recommended the layout be approved as it is shown on the plan now, with the understanding that the applicant will agree to accept that portion of Main Street if the City agrees to abandon it as discussed. This seemed to be the best solution for both the applicant and the City.

Ms. Attaway made a motion to grant final site plan approval subject to the following: correcting the parking schedule and number of spaces as indicated by Mr. Stolman; demonstrate the fence and speed bumps as shown on site plan now so it can remain in the event the City abandons, and the applicant agrees to accept, that portion of Main Street; and demonstrate an alternate location for the speed bumps and fence in the event the City does not agree to abandon that portion of Main Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 7 CONTINUE DISCUSSION AND DEIS COMMENTS FOR

WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, SUBMITTED BY SCENIC

HUDSON LAND TRUST, INC. AND THE FOSS GROUP BEACON, LLC, LONG

DOCK BEACON

Matt Rudikoff, representing Scenic Hudson and the Foss Group Beacon, LLC, attended the meeting to receive comments from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) submitted at the September meeting. Comments have been received from the public, other involved agencies and Frederick P. Clark Associates. Mr. Rudikoff explained they will respond to all comments in their Final Environmental Impact Statement (FIES) and incorporate revisions to the Site Plan. He expressed his hope that consultant comments on the Site Plan would be available by the November meeting. Mr. Stolman reiterated that the applicant will prepare a FEIS which will include the DEIS and responses to all comments that have been submitted. After reviewing those responses, the Planning Board as Lead Agency, will review those responses for acceptance.

Mr. Gunn asked that the applicant respond to the following concerns: (1) does the Waste Water Treatment Facility have adequate capacity to handle this project; (2) how will parking be shared with the MTA; (3) how will emergency vehicle access and coverage be appropriately arranged based on comments submitted by Fire Chief Joseph; and (4) how will the public trail access be maintained through proposed new building.

Ms. Attaway asked that a traffic impact study be submitted. Mr. Sheers shared concerns about traffic, parking and fire protection for the building. Mr. Dexter explained the building will be provided with a sprinkler system and standpipe based on the current design. The consultants will review the site plan submission for the November meeting.

ITEM NO. 8 CONTINUE REVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR SUBDIVISION,

RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SUBMITTED BY PRESHROCK CORPORATION,

HIDDENBROOKE PROPERTY

Glenn Watson of Badey & Watson Surveying, representing Preshrock Corporation (Larry Kalkstein), reported on activities that have taken place since they last appeared before the Planning Board. They focused on preparing a conventional subdivision plan so a final lot count can be determined for a cluster layout. The lot lines were adjusted, road profiles were developed and sewer tie-ins demonstrated. A draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared and submitted to the consultants. Mr. Watson explained that in preparing the EAF, it became abundantly clear that clustering would have significantly less affect on the property. There will be no invasion of the wetlands or steep slopes on the 12-acre portion of property that will be developed.

Mr. Stolman prepared and provided the applicant with a memorandum in response to their latest submission. He reported the Environmental Assessment Form should have been provided with the initial application submission because it provides information on agencies that need to be involved for Lead Agency designation. The size and dimension of each lot must be provided, as well as building envelopes and driveways. Although progress has been made with utilities and road profiles, he felt more information from a planning perspective is needed.

Mr. Tully explained he did not draft a memorandum because his comments remain essentially the same as those prepared in August. He asked that the wetlands be reviewed to determine the amount of disturbance needed in order to make a conventional plan work. More detail on site grading must be shown due to the amount of rock and rock outcroppings on site. Although roads are running with the contours in many instances, the side slopes remain in question. Mr. Tully felt the connection to Mountain Lane created two issues of concern. There are two “legs” to Mountain Lane – one goes into the subject property and one is used as access to several lots. Information on ownership of that street is unclear and must be provided. Although a complete report on the magnitude of stormwater runoff is not needed at this time, enough information to demonstrate an appropriate area will be set aside to adequately manage it is needed. Mr. Tully explained factors that should be taken into account is how much it would actually cost to actually bring the road out to Mountain Lane, and whether Mountain Lane is in a condition to handle the additional traffic. Although economics are not typically considered by many municipalities, financials should be considered to determine if a project would actually be carried out. A plan can look appropriate on a conventional plan but in reality it would be too costly to be financially successful. Mr. Watson understood his logic but explained Planning Boards’ typically tell him that cost is not their concern. Although reasonable, he feels it is not a balanced way to review a project from the developer’s point of view. Mr. Tully felt there should be a point where economics come into play in order to analyze the viability of a project.

Mr. Sheers expressed concern about using Mountain Lane due to its condition and Mr. Tully acknowledged that without access from Mountain Lane, a number of lots shown on the conventional plan would not be achievable. Mr. Watson argued that from a planning perspective the Board should consider that Mountain Lane is a long, dead-end one lane street. He felt today’s regulations would require adequate traffic circulation and would not have allowed Mountain Lane to be created as it is today. Mr. Watson believed this connection would improve circulation and remove an existing dangerous situation.

ITEM NO. 9 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN

APPROVAL, FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AT BRANCH OFFICE

FOR A JEWELRY MANUFACTURING BUSINESS, SUBMITTED BY TIGA, LLC,

74 DENNINGS AVENUE

Al Cappelli representing Tiga, LLC, reported his client was before the Planning Board 18 months ago and received Site Plan Approval for a jewelry manufacturing business. At the time the existing parking lot was adequate however, their business has grown and additional parking is needed.

Mr. Stolman asked that dimensions of the back-up area in the parking lot be provided. Additionally, he asked for a survey of the property if available.

Mr. Tully requested additional protection be provided for the adjacent water course during construction. There may be a slight increase in storm water volume when construction is complete but his greater concern was to protect the water course with more than hay bales during construction.

After some debate concerning the need for a public hearing and the owner’s need to begin construction before blacktop plants close for the winter season, Mr. Williams made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of November, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 10 REVIEW AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL, CENTER

FOR COMMUNICATION & LEARNING, SUBMITTED BY ST. FRANCIS

HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION, 60 DELAVAN AVENUE

Mark Day, representing St. Francis Health Care Foundation, explained this project was previously approved however they now wish to relocate the building. The building will be reoriented and relocated to eliminate the need for retaining walls to reduce costs. The building design remains the same. The modular buildings now being used will be removed once this building is in operation. Utilities will be situated in a partial basement in an underground vault; the remainder of the building will be slab on-grade. Parking requirements have not changed and the bus drop off will work the same in that entry will be through a covered walkway/porch. Although they feel there will be less impact due to the reduction in grading, the stormwater system is the same and will remain in the same location. A cutoff swale will be located behind the building and the retention pond remains the same.

Mr. Tully said he heard there were some drainage problems on Delavan Avenue coming from this property. Although the applicant was not aware of any problems, Mr. Day reported there is absolutely no retention measures there now. Mr. Tully suggested they assess the site after recent heavy rains to see if the plan needs to be modified. He will meet on site with the applicant’s engineer on Friday.

Mr. Stolman asked that they submit a new floor plan and other architectural drawings for a complete package. Signage cut sheets that are on file should also be added to the new plan. Subsequent to the previous approval, another applicant is doing a traffic study of the intersection of Delavan and Fishkill Avenue to determine whether a traffic signal is needed. Therefore Mr. Tully felt it would be helpful for the applicant to contact and work with that applicant from a traffic perspective. Mr. Day reported the proposed use exists in the modular buildings therefore this building will not create additional traffic; there may be more children but they will utilize the same number of buses. Mike McCormack thought the other applicant had completed the traffic study, and believed they considered and incorporated traffic numbers from this facility. He will provide conceptual drawings for presentation at the next meeting. Mr. Dexter asked for a note on the plan indicating the modular buildings will be removed after the new building is completed.

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

ITEM NO. 11 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSAL FOR SUBDIVISION,

3 LOTS, SUBMITTED BY FIRST METHODIST CHURCH, UNION STREET

Dennis Walden, representing the First Methodist Church, described his client’s proposal to subdivide two lots from their 4.7 acre property that borders East Main and Spring Valley Streets. The two residential lots would be 6,000 sq. ft. each, accessed from Spring Valley Street. A separate lot provides access to the church therefore Mr. Stolman advised Mr. Walden to join it with the remainder of property. Mr. Tully asked that a formal application and topography be provided on the next submission.

ITEM NO. 12 CONTINUE REVIEW ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION,

4 LOTS, SUBMITTED BY STEVEN & PATRICIA ROTHBERG, TOMPKINS

AVENUE

Mr. Walden reported this proposed four lot subdivision was previously before the board however adequate sight distance could not be obtained for the new driveways. The entire frontage of property will be graded, and trees and shrubs will be completely removed in order to achieve sight distance. Mr. Tully reported the City Council passed common driveway and private road legislation therefore the proposal could be revised to provide one entrance rather than three. Mr. Tully advised that a tremendous amount of work will go into grading the site as presented and the applicant should consider a private road or common driveway layout. Mr. Walden will examine the two alternatives with his clients. Mr. Gunn expressed concern about the effect this proposal will have on this historical property.

Miscellaneous Business:

Review Proposed Local Laws to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance

Mr. Stolman and Planning Board members reviewed the following proposed local laws and resolution amending the City’s comprehensive which were initially proposed and reviewed in 2003:

1) Local Law A changing the R1-10 One Family Residence District to R1-40 One

Family Residence District (part of 6054-020596808)

2) Local Law B changing the R1-40 One Family Residence District to R1-80 One

Family Residence District (part of 6054-02-596808)

3) Local Law C changing the R1-40 One Family Residence District to R1-120 One

Family Residence District (part of 6054-02-596808)

Mr. Stolman outlined areas affected by the proposed changes, examined zoning change patterns that have been made since 1994 to date, and reviewed environmental assessment information in detail. Mr. Williams felt additional data could be obtained to show how trends in Beacon have changed since the latest census information was created in the year 2000. After much review and discussion, Mr. Sheers made a motion to recommend the City Council proceed with the amendments as presented considering the proposals and zoning changes made good planning sense, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Architectural Review:

Certificate of Appropriateness: 483 Main Street

The Spanish Pentecostal Church submitted a proposal for new front doors on the building at 483 Main Street. After reviewing the proposed changes, Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the alterations as presented, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Certificate of Appropriateness: 144 Main Street

Members reviewed proposed elevations for the building located at 144 Main Street owned by Ronald Piccone. After some consideration, members felt more detail and additional color should be added to the plan before approving the proposal.

Modification of Certificate of Appropriateness: 169-173 Main Street

Members reviewed proposed changes to one of the storefronts at 169-173 Main Street. After reviewing the proposed color scheme, Mr. Sheers made a motion to approve the changes as submitted, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor except Ms. Attaway who voted against the motion. Motion carried 6-1.

Architectural Review: Single Family House, Prospect Street

Members reviewed a revised elevation drawing of a new single family house on Prospect Street. After some discussion, board members approved the design but conditioned approval on aligning the lower floor windows with those on the second floor and to remove the shutter shown in the middle of the first floor windows.

Architectural Review: Single Family House, Misericordia Subdivision

Members reviewed three proposals for single family houses on Lots #1, #2, and #3 at the Misericordia Subdivision. After much debate, Ms. Attaway made a motion to approve the proposed design and color scheme for Lots #1 and #3, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The design for Lot #2 was not approved.

There was no further business to discuss and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to

adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion

carried.