A
Planning Board meeting was held on
Mr. Hibbs
asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the
“Ms. Strianese made a motion to draft a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals making them aware of the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s report and draft proposal to rezone this property, seconded by Mr. Sheers.”
Mr. Sheers asked that the minutes be amended to make clear that Ms. Strianese motioned to approve the drafting of a memorandum, not that she would author the memorandum. Ms. Rapalje made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
(2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY
Owner Eugene Boss explained his neighbor Gary Wood approached him about purchasing a portion of property as discussed at the last meeting. The new layout shows the proposed house located further to the west and closer to the road which is more in line with other houses on the street. A 2,679 sq. ft. portion of property will be conveyed to Gary Wood and become part of his parcel. Each lot continues to conform to the R1-10 zoning and meets bulk requirements of the district.
Mr. Timmis reported off-street parking is not permitted in the required front yard therefore the proposed house, garage and turn-around area should be shifted back. Although Note #8 indicates compliance with NYSDOT sight line requirements by removing rocks, it should be shown on the plan as well.
Mr. Tully explained that due to the land swap between
the applicant and Gary Wood, it is necessary for Mr. Wood to become part of
this application to ensure the land becomes part of his property and not floating
parcel. He also questioned the parking setbacks
because a five foot side yard setback must be provided. A description of the portion of land being
offered to the City for a right-of-way must be provided to the City Attorney
for review and approval. Additionally,
Gary Wood’s property description should be modified to include the newly
acquired section of land and then filed with the
There were no comments from the public and Mr. Williams made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Rapalje made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration for the subdivision and land acquisition, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Attaway made a motion to grant preliminary subdivision approval, subject to the applicant fulfilling consultant comments, waive the final public hearing for the final subdivision plat based upon the fact that the preliminary plat and final plat are substantially the same, and grant final subdivision plat approval subject to the conditions outlined in the preliminary approval. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL (GENERIC STORAGE, RETAIL, OFFICE, SERVICE BUSINESS), SUBMITTED BY GP
BEACON, LLC,
Aryeh Siegel, representing owner Greg Zabel,
described his client’s proposal for the building located on
Mr. Timmis reported most of their original comments have been addressed however had concern about the chain link fencing along the retaining wall. There are two areas that drop down toward the loading area therefore the chain link fence along the wall should be extended to make it safer. Mr. Siegel reported the owner would agree because it would also increases security on the site.
Mr. Tully asked for more information on grading, water and sewer services and interior bathrooms. Research must be done with regard to the 24-inch drainage line that runs through the building. The deed does not call out for an easement or right-of-way so it may be privately owned and maintained. Mr. Tully advised the applicant to work with the Department of Public Works to find out if it is an active pipe in the City’s drainage system. If it is, an easement must be secured. A schedule of allowable uses is listed on the site plan therefore the applicant must return to the Planning Board for approval of any use beyond those listed. With regard to the automotive restoration use, the applicant indicated the building is served with above ground lifts and licensed contractors remove all waste products that are collected.
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.
Mr. Williams made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration for the project, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to grant Site Plan Approval subject to extending the fence along the retaining wall as discussed and to all conditions outlined by the consultants. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE
PERMIT, ARTIST WORKSHOP, SUBMITTED BY DAVID CLARK, 18 OVERLOOK AVENUE
David Clark described his proposal to install a kiln
in a recently constructed accessory structure on his property at
Mr. Timmis asked that a note be added to the plan indicating there will be an inspection performed by the Building Department every two years. Mr. Tully asked that the plan indicate who prepared it.
There were no comments from the public and Mr. Williams made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Gunn made a motion to recommend the City Council issue a Special Use Permit for the artist workshop, subject to fulfilling comments made by the consultants, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE
PERMIT, WINE BAR, SUBMITTED BY MARCILLAC, INC., 173 MAIN STREET (BUILDING OWNED
BY SKENDER BERISHA)
Applicant Erin Kaleel described her proposal to
create a wine bar at
Mr. Dexter explained there was a variance issued to waive the commercial parking requirement which indicated the parking lot in the rear would only be utilized for residential space on the upper floors of the building. Although the variance was not specific to a particular use, the applicant is seeking approval based on their belief that additional parking need not be provided. Mr. Sheers reported he was on the Zoning Board of Appeals when that variance was granted and recalled the intent at the time was to waive parking requirements for the commercial space since residential parking was provided in the rear. He explained at issue was residential space and although documentation is vague, the intent was to encourage the owner to fix up a deteriorated building.
Ms. Kaleel reported deliveries will be only once or twice
a week between
Kevin Byrne,
Steve
Gold,
Michael Benzer, owner of 162 and
Tim Mazinski, business owner at
Kevin McCarthy,
There were no further comments and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Hibbs polled each member about requiring improvements on the remainder of the site and it was agreed that the parking lot should not hinder this business. Mr. Tully advised the storage tank must be code compliant which can be taken care of through the Building Department. He also recommended removing all proposed improvements shown on the plan that the owner does not intend to complete; and that proposed changes that will be done remain on the plan, particularly the fencing. The applicant must show a clear intention of the work that will be done on the site.
There are no proposed changes to the façade which previously received a Certificate of Appropriateness however the applicant must submit signage proposals for approval. Mr. Williams made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a Special Use Permit for the proposed wine bar, subject to conditions outlined by the consultants and that the applicant return with detailed sign information for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 5 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
(
Chris Ankner representing Lennar Corp. described their proposal to give a section of land to the rear of Lots #5 and #6 to owners of property in the River Knolls development, specifically Lots #19, #20, and #21 where encroachments have taken place. The portion of property in question is part of a conservation easement created when the property known as “Misericordia” was subdivided.
Mr. Timmis agreed that improvements within the
conservation easement may have existed when the property was subdivided and a
land swap may benefit all property owners.
Mr. Tully asked why Lot #4 on the Lennar property and
Ultimately, Mr. Tully explained there are at least four property owners that must take part in this application. Those owners must sign on and be agreeable to what is proposed on the plan. A written agreement must show that all involved parties have a clear understanding of what they are signing on to before any action can take place. If the Planning Board then determines approval of the lot line realignment is subject to the removal of the fencing, the shed and concrete slab they may not choose to participate in the application. The City is responsible to enforce terms of the easement. Discussion took place regarding the intent of the conservation easement and whether terms of the easement should be enforced or waived in this circumstance. Concerns were raised that changing the terms of the agreement would compromise the Board’s ability to create and enforce similar easements in the future.
John Bevilacqua,
Joe Parrelli,
Samuel Davids,
Bill Zopf,
½-acre lots and due to the conservation subdivision approval, lots less than ½-acre were created with the stipulation of a conservation easement along South Avenue and both sides of the parcel. He feels that trying to change the easement at this point in time would make a mockery of the entire Planning Board process. If any conservation easement could be arbitrarily taken away, it would take away from the Planning Board’s purpose to protect other citizens. Mr. Zopf added that it would not be right to pull the easement back into the new lots because the new owners have done nothing wrong; the remedy should lie in the encroachers’ hands. He had no problem moving the lot lines as long as the conservation easement remains, however felt all owners should abide by the rules of the easement, i.e. no fences, sheds, pools, etc.
Carol Sawitz,
Mr. Williams asked if Lennar would consider taking on the expense of relocating the shed and taking the fence down. In response, Lennar offered to relocate the shed and take down the fence but was not sure if they would reconstruct the fence. Mr. Hibbs polled members to see if they would consider the application if all improvements were removed. A question arose regarding the enforcement of the conservation easement. City Attorney Pisanelli recommended that as long as the conservation easement remains intact, the terms go along with lot line realignment and the four affected property owners must accept those terms as well. Enforcement is through the Building Department and Mr. Bevilacqua was provided with their phone number as requested.
There were no further comments and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Williams. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Tully advised the board that they must make a decision within 62 days of closing the public hearing and noted in order to proceed with the application all affected property owners must be made part of the application. A lengthy debate took place regarding whether the improvements that currently exist within the easement need to be removed and if the easement as established be maintained as such into the future.
Ms. Attaway made a motion to grant a negative SEQRA declaration on the proposed lot line realignment, seconded by Mr. Williams. On roll call Ms. Attaway, Mr. Williams, Mr. Lanari, Mr. Hibbs, Ms. Rapalje and Mr. Gunn voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Sheers voted against the motion. Motion carried 6-1.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant preliminary approval subject to the following conditions: all property owners become part of the application; all improvements in the conservation easement be removed, i.e. fences, sheds, concrete slabs; all parties agree to the terms originally established; specific notes of the easement be printed directly on the plat; fulfilling any engineering and/or planning comments that may be forthcoming based on review of a revised submission; and information pertaining to the conservation easement be added and made part of property deeds of all affected property owners, specifically those in the River Knolls development. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rapalje. On roll call Mr. Williams, Ms. Rapalje, Mr. Lanari, Ms. Attaway and Mr. Hibbs voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Sheers and Mr. Gunn voted against the motion. Motion carried 5-2.
Board members discussed the condition of the easement at length because conflicting information has been presented, i.e. the encroachments took place after the subdivision was approved and/or the conditions pre-existed the subdivision approval. Mr. Tully explained the only document the Planning Board has to rely on is the subdivision plan as it was approved therefore recommended a complete review of the conditions indicated on the plan. If the plan indicates it was lawn, then it is lawn; if it indicates a wooded area, then it is a wooded area. The information on the subdivision plat was presented to the Planning Board as being accurate. Mr. Tully asked owners to present any surveys or information that may accurately show what existed on the property. All existing and available data will be reviewed by the Board so they can make a determination regarding what, if any, restoration will be required within the easement area.
ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
(4 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS), SUBMITTED BY TARIQ MAHMOOD (PROPERTY OWNED BY PETER IANNONE),
Dennis Walden, representing Tariq Mahmood, described
his client’s proposal to subdivide a parcel of land at
Mr. Tully
reported the turn-around area on
George Coughlin,
Richard
Kolakoski,
Tara Landisi,
Allison Acquaviva,
The public hearing will remain open to allow time for further investigation of the sewer line. Investigation will take place to see if the sewer can handle the additional services.
George Coughlin felt the sewer problem relates to stormwater draining into the sanitary sewer lines. He feels more houses will only create additional problems because the sewer lines have not changed or been improved. Mr. Tully assured him that the applicant must resolve those concerns before final approval is granted. The public hearing will remain open.
Architectural
Review
1.
After careful review of the plan for the proposed
two-family house, drawn by Justin Kakur, dated
2.
After careful review of the plan for a single-family
house, drawn by Gillespie & Associates, dated
There was no further business to discuss and Ms.
Rapalje made a motion to adjourn the meeting at