Beacon City
Planning Board
February 14, 2006
The Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, February 14, 2006
in the courtroom of the Municipal
Center. The regular meeting commenced at 7:10 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs;
Members Spring Attaway and John Gunn; Alternate Members Mike Lanari and
Elizabeth Strianese; Building Inspector Tim Dexter; City Engineer John Russo
(in for Art Tully); City Planner David Stolman; and City Attorney Gerard
Pisanelli in attendance. Members Jay
Sheers, Randall Williams and Anne Rapalje were excused; Member Tony Lassiter
was absent.
After reviewing the minutes from January’s meeting regarding
discussion of the architectural review law, Mr. Hibbs questioned the term
“subjective” because it appeared that members were looking for more definitive
standards. After some discussion, Ms.
Attaway made a motion to replace the word “subjective” with “objective”,
seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 1 CONTINUE PUBLIC
HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR
SUBDIVISION, (5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY BEACON
TERMINAL ASSOCIATES, 989
WOLCOTT AVENUE
Mr. Hibbs announced the public hearing notice was
published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on Wednesday, February 8, 2006. The engineer from Paggi, Martin & DelBene
reviewed modifications to the subdivision layout resulting from last month’s
discussion. Adjacent houses, sheds and
pools were added to show their correlation to the proposed houses. Modifications were made to drainage plans on
the eastern side of Lot #1 to help diminish
both surface and subsurface water from traveling onto surrounding
properties. A swale was added along the
property line to direct drainage to a catch basin to collect surface water; and
a drainage line was added to collect subsurface water. The paper street off Iris Circle will provide private road access
to Lots #2, 3, 4; Lot #1 will have a private
driveway off Wolcott Avenue. Concerns were raised that the rear of the
house on Lot #3 may be visible from Wolcott Avenue and
look awkward.
Mr. Stolman asked that sight distance measurements
for Lot #1 must be provided; access easements
and maintenance agreements for the private road are needed. Legal easement documents must be submitted
for review and approval by the City Attorney.
Eventually the building envelopes must be reduced in size and house
orientations must be provided.
Mr. Russo asked that survey and topographic
information on neighboring properties be provided on the plan. Easements must indicate who will benefit, own
and maintain the utilities they serve. Since
they plan to connect drainage from the site into an existing catch basin on Wolcott Avenue, a
drainage analysis of the site is needed.
A study of the off-site system to ensure that the existing system can
handle additional flow is also required.
Details on how the retaining wall along the front of Lot
#1 which extends onto the McCabe property will be accomplished are needed. Profiles for the proposed private road must
be provided. Additional measures may be
required to ensure that drainage from the private road is controlled rather
than crossing over lots. A low area in
the driveway of Lot #3 may create ponding and
should be revised. The plan should note
which way houses will be oriented.
Proposed grading is shown at 2:1 which is excessive for a residential
lot and is difficult for homeowners to maintain therefore Mr. Russo recommended
the lots be re-graded and advised the applicant to provide landscaping
plans.
Mr. Lanari asked to see the orientation of homes in
the River Knolls development to be sure the back of the house on Lot #3 is not visible from the street.
Beyond
meeting the technical issues of a subdivision, Mr. Gunn was uncertain whether
the project made good planning sense. He
had concern that houses would be placed near existing back yards and as
Chairman of the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee, felt fewer houses would be
more appropriate. Although aware of the
lot count reduction, Mr. Gunn had concern about environmental, aesthetic and drainage
issues. He explained that sometimes
affects of a development aren’t truly felt until a project is built out. Mr. Stolman explained the R1-7.5 zoning
district requires 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit and proposed lots are roughly
15,000 sq. ft. which is well above the minimum standard. The Planning Board’s role is administrative
in nature and they can only follow existing zoning regulations to see that technical
requirements can be met.
Curtis
Blair, 3 Jordan Road,
asked if an environmental impact study had been completed for the project. Mr. Stolman explained an Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) was submitted however the proposal did not meet the
threshold for an environmental impact study.
Mr. Blair felt drainage issues on the site would warrant further study. He did not approve of the applicant’s
proposal for a catch basin to connect to drainage in Wolcott Avenue. Mr. Blair expressed total opposition to Lot #1 due to the intrusion of his privacy and ruination
of the wooded lot that adjoins his property.
He feels the entire proposal is about making money and reiterated
concern for drainage problems.
Sally
Blair, 3 Jordan Road,
told of two major flooding problems in her house and reported the City of Beacon does not want to
take any responsibility. She feels all runoff
will go onto their property because water flows downhill. Mrs. Blair wants no more water in her
basement and said if the development is built, there will be a lawsuit. They will perform a dye test to find out
where the water is coming from. Mrs.
Blair said the City or FEMA does not want to reimburse them for any
damage.
Ernie
Gurina, 16 Iris Circle,
pointed out that his house is adjacent to the proposed private road. He purchased his house because he liked the adjacent
wooded area and the fact that no one would build next door. He does not have a water problem now but
fears that may change with development.
Mr. Gurina does not want someone in his back yard where he and his wife
enjoy sitting on the deck. He said the
City is finally taking care of the easement and the area has been used for
neighborhood block parties. Mr. Stolman
explained the area is a City owned “paper street” that was intentionally
created as part of the River Knolls development. Mr. Gurina said he roped off his property to
deter children from trespassing on his land.
Mr. Stolman asked his opinion on which way the house should face if one were
to be built behind his property. He explained
owners have a right to develop their property and the City makes every effort
to lessen impact on the neighbors. Mr.
Gurina explained it is a nice neighborhood but if building intrudes on his
privacy he will consider relocating after retirement. He reiterated opposition to the project.
Iesha Cofield,
20 Iris Circle,
on the other side of the paper street, expressed her opposition to the proposed
development. The area behind her house
is now a wooded area and new homes will take away from their quality of her
family’s life. The area is too small and
it will become over saturated. She had
concerns for traffic and neighborhood children who will no longer be able to
ride bikes as freely as they do now. Ms.
Cofield felt the paper street would not be wide enough for a private road and
believed the poorly planned project is about money rather than the quality of
life of current residents. Ms. Cofield
reported her house has no water or flooding issues but sympathized with her
neighbors’ predicament.
Michele Gordan, 12 Iris Circle, was completely against the
development primarily because she and her husband purchased the property due to
the privacy it afforded. She had no
problems with water however felt a new private road would affect the safety of
her children. Ms. Gordan expressed hope
that the board will listen and take everyone’s opposition into consideration.
Sally Blair, 3 Jordan Road, said the Lennar
development has already brought more traffic into their neighborhood and asked
how much more of an overload can be put on Jordan Road. There is only one way in and out for 56 homes
and this project will just add to the problem.
Edward
Cofield, 20 Iris Circle,
asked if a stop sign would be placed at the end of the private street because
it is on a curve with a blind spot. Mr.
Hibbs explained sight distance measurements must be provided and the entire
plan is still under evaluation. The
applicant will return to these meetings until all concerns and regulations have
been appropriately addressed.
Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street and chairperson of the
Concerned Citizens Organization reported they represent business owners and
residents in Beacon. He asked about
neighborhood flooding because residents may hire an engineer to perform their
own study. He agreed developers have the
right to build on their property but they should not infringe on other
residences.
Ms. Strianese made clear that the public needs to
attend meetings to monitor the progress of this proposal and to see what
changes are being made since all information cannot be mailed directly to each
individual.
Ms. Attaway asked if previous flooding was directly
related to this property since no physical changes have taken place yet. She understood resident concerns and agreed that
the situation not be made worse.
Curtis Blair, 3 Jordan Road, asked how this development
would better his life, particularly in terms of additional traffic, more cars,
visual intrusions, drainage, etc. He
feels no taxpayers will benefit. Mr.
Hibbs explained property owners have a right to subdivide their property as
long as it is developed to the standards set forth in the City of Beacon Code. Impacts such as traffic, drainage,
environmental issues, etc. are all controlled by the SEQRA process. Mr. Hibbs explained the board is making every
effort to make sure that Beacon is a better place to live by not “rubber
stamping” every project that comes before the board. He feels members give every project careful
consideration to all concerns presented by the public.
Sally Blair, 3 Jordan Road, explained if she has
flooding problems if this project is approved, the City will be in a great deal
of trouble.
Sean Gordan, 12 Iris Circle, felt the only taxpayers
affected by this project will be the ones dealing with noise from construction
and other adverse interruptions. He
suggested they move houses toward the back of the property so existing houses
are not affected. Mr. Hibbs explained this
parcel could be divided into 10 or 11 lots based on minimum lot requirements in
this zoning district. The developer
first proposed seven lots and based on review comments reduced the lot count to
five. Mr. Hibbs explained the public
hearing was scheduled much earlier than most in order to obtain all comments
and concerns from neighbors. Mr. Gordan
reiterated his opposition to the project.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Gunn made a motion to
close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Lanari. On roll call, Mr. Gunn, Mr. Lanari, Mr. Hibbs
and Ms. Attaway voted in favor of the motion; Ms. Strianese voted against the motion. Motion carried 4-1. Ms. Strianese explained she would like to
hear comments from other neighbors.
Mr. Russo
gave the engineer permission to submit an aerial topography so access to
individual private property is not necessary.
ITEM NO. 2 CONTINUE PUBLIC
HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL
USE PERMIT (2 FAMILY DWELLING), SUBMITTED BY LOU AMOROSO,
VAIL AVENUE
As discussed at the last meeting, Mr. Stolman and Mr.
Tully met with Mr. Amoroso to review his site plan and determine an appropriate
front yard setback for the proposed structure.
Although zoning requires a 30 ft. setback, setbacks of adjacent houses
are considered so consistent frontage is maintained. In this case, there are no homes to the left
or right of the parcel however most homes in the neighborhood are closer than
30 ft. therefore they felt an 18 ft. front yard setback would be characteristic
with the neighborhood. The existing
garage is not much more than a shed and clearly cannot be used as a
garage. The doors that now face Vail Avenue will be
relocated giving access to the Union
Street property and to eliminate the need for
cross easements. Mr. Stolman explained properties
owned by Mr. Amoroso are two separate tax parcels and each could be sold
separately. Since they not joined, parking
for the Union Street
house cannot be tied into parking requirements for the new home on Vail Avenue. Four parking spaces are required for the two-family
house and a driveway eventually be constructed for the Union Street parcel when needed. Mr. Stolman advised members that they are in
a position to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Special
Use Permit and suggested it be conditioned on the applicant returning to the
Planning Board for final site plan review.
He felt four off-street parking spaces could be accommodated on the
vacant lot and noted the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for a
two-family house. It is common practice
for the Planning Board to hold a Special Use Permit application only long
enough to be sure code requirements can be met before sending it to the City
Council. Then if a Special Use Permit
can’t be secured, the applicant has not spent a great deal of time and expense
on generating a final site plan.
Mr. Laneri agreed that the garage is only the size of
a shed, and understood the reasoning behind decoupling the Union Street property from the Vail Street
parcel. He wants the macadam for the new
driveway at least five feet from the property line.
Angelo Pomarico, 88 Prospect Street, contended that
realistically six off-street parking spaces will be needed because the house on
Union Street
has no parking. Mr. Hibbs explained Mr.
Amoroso could sell the house on Union
Street in its pre-existing non-conforming condition
therefore the vacant parcel must be considered separately. Mr. Amoroso explained the two parcels have
been separated for nearly 100 years. Mr.
Pomarico argued that six off-street parking spaces are required no matter what
and that Mr. Amoroso found a loophole in the law. Mr. Pomarico asked why the applicant was sent
to the Zoning Board of Appeals before making application to the Planning Board. Mr. Stolman explained Special Use Permit
applications are made to the City Council and the Planning Board acts in an
administrative manner to make recommendations to the City Council who has the
final decision. Mr. Pomarico felt the
applicant should not have gotten approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals so quickly. A lengthy discussion took place regarding off-street
parking requirements and vehicles that will actually be parking on the
property. Mr. Amoroso reported his son
is planning to move into the existing house, his daughter (who is a single
parent) will live on the second floor and he and his wife will live on the lower
level of the new two-family dwelling. He
said the only time vehicles can’t park on the street is during snow events when
an alternate arrangement will be made.
Dennis
Pavelock, 34 Judson Street,
urged the Planning Board to grant a Special Use Permit for a two-family house
to Mr. Amoroso.
There
were no further comments from the public and Ms. Attaway made a motion to close
the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Strianese.
All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
The
following letter regarding the application was resubmitted:
I have concerns for
the proposed two-story, two-family house to be located across the street from
my home which is located at 57
Vail Avenue.
It does not appear on the plan that there will be adequate parking; not
for just the proposed two-family home, but also for the already existing home
that Mr. Amoroso currently owns and lives in.
The plan gives four parking spaces when six will be needed (this is
based on the idea that most families/couples have two cars/trucks each). This concerns me because I have the longest
stretch of property across from his property and would most likely always have
their cars parked in front of my property.
Secondly, it would be a shame if everyone in Beacon decides to use up
every single open space for development/profit.
We bought our home in this neighborhood specifically because of the
larger lots and open space. As you have
seen from the very recent past in this very neighborhood (Prospect Street near Green Street
Park) it is not always
the wisest decision to wedge in homes where there is clearly not enough space.
David Gluck
57 Vail Avenue
Beacon, New York
Ms. Attaway made a motion to recommend the City
Council issue a Special Use Permit for the two-family dwelling subject to the
applicant returning to the Planning Board for final site plan review and
approval and that the City Council assure itself that the parking standards of
the City of Beacon are being met, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION (2
RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY DAVID DELEO, 59 DEPUYSTER
AVENUE
David DeLeo described his proposal to subdivide .8
acre parcel located at 59
DePuyster Avenue in the R1-10 zoning
district. The property will be divided
down the middle to separate the existing house and create a new lot. Both parcels will share a common driveway
with turning areas and the new house will have a detached two car garage. City water and sewer services will serve the
property, and connection will be made to the City’s storm drainage located in
the street. A drainage swale was added as
requested.
Mr.
Stolman asked that easement information including a note indicating who they
favor be provided on the plan. Mr. DeLeo
reported legal easement documentation has been provided to the City Attorney
for review and approval.
Mr. Russo requested a drainage swale be added along
the existing stone wall to collect water and direct runoff to the storm
basin. A check valve must be placed on
the footing drain line to ensure water cannot direct back to the foundation if
the basin gets clogged. At the last
meeting, Mr. Russo pointed out the applicant was asked to look at combining the
driveway turnaround areas to reduce the amount of pavement. Mr. DeLeo explained the proposed house was
moved closer to the road to align it with neighboring housing and as a result,
the garage was relocated. In order to
better define each parcel and provide better aesthetics, a green area and
individual turn around spaces were provided.
There were no 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.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA
declaration for the proposed subdivision and to grant preliminary approval
subject to fulfilling remaining comments outlined by the City consultants,
seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION (LOT
LINE REALIGNMENT), SUBMITTED BY CITY OF BEACON, CROSS STREET
PARKING LOT
John Russo, representing the City of Beacon, presented the plan
for a lot line realignment of property located on Cross Street. He reported that prior to construction of the
municipal parking lot, it was discovered that an existing shed and chain link
fence encroached on the property. The
City agreed that upon completion of the municipal parking lot, the narrow strip
of land that is of no use to the City would be deeded over to Crossix. A legal agreement between the City and Mr.
Guarneri (Crossix) was signed to resolve the property line dispute. The strip of land will not become a separate
parcel as it will be added to the larger existing lot. The owner (Crossix) will sign the plat
showing agreement to the revised common property line.
There
were no comments from the public and Ms. Attaway made a motion to close the
public hearing, seconded by Mr. Lanari.
All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
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 the understanding that the small strip will be joined with the
existing parcel, seconded by Mr. Gunn.
All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
ITEM NO. 5 CONTINUE REVIEW OF
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, (2
RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY ARNOLD
RESTIVO, RALPH STREET
There were no representatives present for this item
therefore it will be postponed until the March 2006 meeting.
ITEM NO. 6 REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR SUBDIVISION, (2 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS), SUBMITTED BY ANTOINETTE MCDOWELL, LINCOLN AVENUE AND
CANNON STREET
Dennis Walden described his client’s proposal to
divide property located at the intersection of Cannon Street and Lincoln Avenue into two parcels. An existing house is located on Lot #1 and a
new single family house would be constructed on Lot
#2. Sight distance measurements were
provided.
Mr. Stolman asked if the house on Lot
#1 was a single family or two-family dwelling.
Mr. Walden explained it is a legal non-conforming two-family dwelling
that was grandfathered in. Mr. Stolman
explained the zoning district was changed from an RD-3 zone which permitted
multiple family dwellings to an R1-5 zone.
He advised Mr. Walden to show how parking on Lot
#1 can be arranged so vehicles do not back out into the street. Also, he asked that the turn around area for Lot #2 be shown on the plan. Mr. Stolman said they will continue to check
sight distance measurements.
Mr. Russo
asked that elevations for the proposed house, specifically the garage floor,
first floor and basement, be provided.
Grading for Lot #2 should be shown on
the plan, as well as proposed water and sewer service locations. Roof and footing drains and their discharge
locations must be provided.
There
were no further comments and Mr. Gunn made a motion to set a public hearing for
the month of March, seconded by Mr. Lanari.
All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Miscellaneous
Business
1. Consider request for 90 day extension of
conditional final approval of Subdivision, on Wilson Street, approval granted
8/9/2005, submitted by Thomas Ninnie
Thomas
Ninnie submitted a letter requesting a 90-day extension for his two lot
subdivision on Wilson Street
which received approval on August
9, 2005. The few outstanding
issues are currently being addressed by a new engineer. After considering the request, Mr. Gunn made
a motion to grant the requested extension, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
2. Consider request for 90 day extension of conditional final approval
of Subdivision
on Slocum Road,
approval granted 6/14/2005,
submitted by Ferdinand & Susanne
Metz
Ferdinand
Metz submitted a letter requesting a 90-day extension for his two lot
subdivision off Slocum Road
which received approval on June
14, 2005. The delay is a
result of the Health Department’s request for additional engineering
information on the well and septic system.
After considering the request, Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant the
requested extension, seconded by Ms. Attaway.
All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Architectural
Review
Annan Street – Single Family House
Mr. Dexter presented elevation drawings for a new single
family house on Annan Street. Members compared adjacent housing stock and
after reviewing the proposed house, Mr. Gunn made a motion to approve the
proposal as presented, seconded by Mr. Lanari.
On roll call, Mr. Gunn, Mr. Lanari, Mr. Hibbs and Ms. Strianese voted in
favor of the motion; Ms. Attaway voted against the motion. Motion carried 4-1. Members asked that the next submissions for the
two remaining vacant lots in the subdivision be somewhat different.
Cliff
Street – Single Family House
Mr.
Dexter presented revised elevation drawings for the area under the entry stair
on a proposed single family house on Cliff
Street. The
applicant proposes a solid back with vertical privacy slats. After a lengthy review and discussion
regarding the change, Ms. Strianese made a motion to approve the change subject
to changing the proposed enclosure to align with the left edge, seconded by Ms.
Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Misericordia Subdivision - Lennar
Proposed
single family houses for Lot #3 and Lot #12
were previously approved and the applicant attended the meeting to present
design proposals for the remaining lots.
Plans were revised to address dissatisfaction with three car garages
that extended out from the main structure.
A lengthy discussion and review of revised house model elevations,
locations and streetscape proposals took place.
After much debate and evaluation the following layout and designs were
approved on a motion made by Ms. Attaway, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The applicant will return with a final plans
and a streetscape drawing showing the approved designs.
Lot #1 The
Briarcliff I
Lot #2 The Briarcliff II (needs final approval)
Lot #4 The
Briarcliff IV
Lot #5 The
Briarcliff V
Lot #6 The
Briarcliff VI
Lot #7 The
Amhurst
Lot #8 The
Briarcliff VIII
Lot #9 The Amhurst II (w/3 car garage)
Lot #10 The
Briarcliff X
Lot #11 The
Amhurst
Lot #13 hold
Lot #14 hold
There was no further business to discuss and Mr. Gunn
made a motion to
adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m., seconded by Mr.
Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.