Beacon City Planning Board

May 8, 2007

A Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs; Members Jay Sheers, Mike Lanari, Spring Attaway (joined meeting at 7:20 p.m.) and John Gunn; Alternate Member Jim Svetz ; City Engineer Art Tully; Planner Chris Holmes (in for David Stolman); City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli and Deputy Building Inspector Dave Buckley. Members Randall Williams and Anne Rapalje; and Alternate Member Elizabeth Strianese were excused.

Mr. Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the April 10, 2007 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. Mr. Gunn made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ACCESSORY APARTMENT, SUBMITTED BY TIM JOSEPH, 9 ALDRIDGE PLACE

Tim Joseph briefly described his proposal to create an accessory apartment in the lower level of his residence at 9 Aldridge Place.

Mr. Holmes reported the proposal meets zoning requirements and although the parking layout is not ideal, the street does not have through traffic.

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

Mr. Gunn made a motion to recommend the City Council issue a Special Use Permit for the accessory apartment, with no need to return to the Planning Board, seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY, SUBMITTED BY OMINIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SUBSIDIARY OF T-MOBILE), ONE FORRESTAL HEIGHTS

Jeff Davis, attorney for Hiscock & Barclay representing Omnipoint Communications, described his client’s proposal to install a wireless communication antenna on the penthouse of the Beacon Housing Authority building at One Forrestal Heights. The application complies with zoning requirements and the high-rise building is the preferred location. Six panel antennas will be flush mounted on the penthouse and placed lower than the other eight antennas currently located there. The cable will run across the roof and down the side of the building to an equipment cabinet near the others. Mr. Davis reported this application replaces their original proposal for a tower at the Southern Dutchess golf course.

Mr. Holmes explained the application complies with City zoning requirements but questioned the location of the equipment cabinet. He felt a better location would be in the existing fenced in area near the driveway between the building and sidewalk. Mr. Davis explained the landlord preferred the equipment cabinet to be located in that area to be near the others. Pavement would need to be dug up for underground wiring if it were located elsewhere. Mr. Davis said the small refrigerator size equipment cabinet is off-white in color and easily hidden by the existing equipment. The fencing enclosure will be provided with privacy slats to match existing fencing.

Mr. Tully reiterated the importance of avoiding interference with frequencies used by emergency services. Written confirmation that others will not be affected with interference must be submitted. Mr. Davis reported they will operate within all FCC regulations which mandate no interference. He explained they operate on a significantly different frequency and a site-safe study was done to document all antennas and each radio frequency. Their lease with the Beacon Housing Authority contains an additional provision so if any interference takes place they must immediately shut down their operation to make necessary corrections. Mr. Davis explained they are confident that there will be no interference as required by the FCC. Mr. Tully asked that written confirmation be submitted to the Planning Board.

Members appreciated the applicant’s response by changing the proposed location. Mr. Gunn did not favor a chain link enclosure however understood it would match existing fencing. There were no comments from the public and Mr. Sheers made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

After some discussion regarding their response time in the event of any obstructions, Mr. Sheers made a motion to recommend the City Council issue a Special Use Permit for the wireless facility, subject to the submission of written confirmation that they will respond to any interference immediately, and to provide contact information to the Fire Department and for the file. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Holmes will confirm whether they need to return for final site plan approval after fully reviewing the code.

ITEM NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO AMEND AN EXISTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT, MODIFY APARTMENT LAYOUT FROM ONE TO TWO UNITS, SUBMITTED BY ANTHONY FOX & PAUL QUELEY, 463 MAIN STREET

Jeff Wilkinson, accompanied by property owner Anthony Fox, described the proposal to amend an existing Special Use Permit approved in 1999 for the former police headquarters at 463 Main Street. The original approval was for a single commercial storefront with a very large 2,000 sq. ft. duplex apartment. In the interim, the owner passed away and the building changed hands. Mr. Fox is seeking approval to create a studio apartment on the first floor (to the rear of the commercial space) and a two bedroom apartment on the second floor. It makes the building more economically feasible and the proposed layout makes more sense. A density variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals as required, there will be no changes to the exterior, and off-street parking is adequate because requirements remain below that of the building’s use in 1964.

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

Mr. Gunn made a motion to recommend the City Council amend the existing Special Use Permit to add a studio apartment in the building located at 463 Main Street, with no need to return for final site plan approval, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 4 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE REALIGNMENT), SUBMITTED BY LENNAR CORP., VICTOR ROAD

P. Daniel Hollis, III, Attorney from Shamberg, Marwell, Davis & Hollis, P.C. zoning and litigation counsel, attended the meeting on behalf of Lennar Corp for the proposed lot line change. Mr. Hollis did a comprehensive review of the situation and the resolution of approval voted on a month ago with regard to the application for lot line realignment between the Misericordia Subdivision and the River Knolls subdivision. In an effort to remediate the situation for all concerned, they drafted a resolution of approval for a lot line change that differs from what was previously voted on. The draft resolution was provided to the City Attorney in preparation of the June meeting. Mr. Hollis explained that although the conservation easement between River Knolls and Misericordia was created with all good intention, it is really just a buffer easement. He said the easement is really not a conservation easement in the true sense because no specific flora or fauna exists within the area to be protected. Mr. Hollis explained it was established to create a buffer between two abutting subdivisions and to provide the existing property owners comfort that they would not have new neighbors directly on their property lines. He explained that as Lennar acquired title to the property, they began a closer review the subdivision and individual lot surveys. Field reviews based on updated surveys disclosed encroachments in certain areas, specifically Lot #5 and #6 now before the board, as well as Lots #3 and #4 which may be here in the future. Mr. Hollis explained the conservation easement, entered into by the City and property owner in 2005, may not have included all the necessary parties considering adverse possession claims in favor of property owners in the River Knolls subdivision. He reported that adverse possession is a theory of law which gives a person, even though they don’t have a deed to the property, a level of ownership under certain conditions because it was occupied for a period of time. Mr. Hollis explained they must work out the situation between River Knolls owners who have possible adverse possession claims and customers of Lennar who have properties in the Misericordia Subdivision. A hearing is scheduled at the end of June relating to pending litigation between two Misericordia lots and River Knolls properties. River Knolls’ adverse possession rights may trump the conservation easement because they were not party to the conservation easement and did not waive their right to adverse possession. Mr. Hollis explained his plan is to amend the resolution of approval and have the conservation easement amendment signed by the City of Beacon and all affected property owners. The draft resolution Mr. Hollis proposes includes a clause that no new structures can be placed within the boundaries of conservation area but those that currently exist will be allowed to remain. Mr. Hollis added the economic and title issues with respective owners will be worked out by Lennar.

City Attorney Pisanelli felt their proposal could be a viable solution for a difficult situation. He advised the board to review the draft resolution and requested they put off action until the month of June. City Attorney Pisanelli explained the applicant must waive the 62-day closure requirement and Mr. Hollis agreed to fax a letter memorializing that intention. The developer will be responsible for securing approval from all affected property owners. City Attorney Pisanelli believed this proposal would protect the intention of the conservation easement.

Mr. Tully explained the board has never been through a situation of adverse possession but had they been aware of the encroachments at the time, the subdivision may have been restructured because the width of the easement varies around the property. He asked how the conservation easement would be physically delineated if the lot line realignment is approved. Mr. Hollis explained the conservation easement area would remain the same, just located on someone else’s property, and as a condition of approval, monuments could be placed on the property lines to delineate the area. He reported the surveys provided to Lennar did not reveal encroachments which were discovered late in the transaction. He explained that when the magnitude of the problem was realized, they began to analyze and address the issue. Mr. Tully asked if existing structures could be replaced with new if they become in disrepair and advised the board to consider allowing them to only replicate what currently exists. Improvements within the area would be allowed to continue but the question of mown grass remained.

Mr. Lanari asked how parcels not included in current litigation would be affected if this application is approved. He expressed concerns that the Planning Board would be placed in the middle of litigations they should not be otherwise involved in. Mr. Hollis explained it is not their intent to put the Planning Board in the middle. He was hopeful that litigation between Lots #3 and #4 would be deposed, at least in principle, by the June 12^th meeting. Mr. Lanari requested information on pending litigations because he felt the board should be aware of specific circumstances before making a determination. Mr. Hollis offered to provide the City Attorney with a report outlining the facts and status of that litigation. After additional discussion regarding adverse possession issues and cases in general, Mr. Hollis thanked the board for their time and reported they will return to the June 12, 2007 meeting.

ITEM NOS. 5 & 6 REVIEW TWO APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS, TWO 2-FAMILY DWELLINGS, SUBMITTED BY DAVID DELEO,

59 & 65 DEPUYSTER AVENUE

David DeLeo, owner of two adjacent parcels on DePuyster Avenue, described his proposal to create two two-family dwellings on property that was recently subdivided into two lots. The property had an existing single family house and the subdivision plan calls for a shared driveway to provide access to each parcel. Members were provided with pictures of his Main Street building renovation to depict the quality of his work. Although the properties are located in a single family zoning district, Mr. DeLeo pointed out that they are located in the middle of a “micro” multi-family zone. He presented a copy of the City’s zoning map highlighting other multi-family houses on the street, as verified by tax records. Mr. Buckley pointed out that paying taxes for multi-family dwellings does not necessarily make them legal because the Assessor assigns value to real property based on its use, not legality. Mr. Buckley explained the properties in question could be “pre-existing, non-conforming” in that they were in existence prior to the current zoning code and occupancy did not cease for a continuous period of one year. He reported one of the properties highlighted is not a legal two-family dwelling.

Mr. DeLeo made the argument that this particular area has eight multi-family dwellings and only five single-family dwellings. He explained the common driveway accesses the two parcels which in total are approximately 8 acres; four parking spaces will be provided for each house. Mr. DeLeo noted he could have crammed three single family houses on the property but declared he would not design such an unsatisfactory layout. He explained this project would provide much needed housing for young couples starting out in Beacon. Mr. DeLeo reported his application for a use variance is on the May 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals agenda and requested the board consider referring him with a favorable recommendation.

After considering his request, Ms. Attaway made a motion forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for variances be

denied, seconded by Mr. Lanari. On roll call, Ms. Attaway, Mr. Lanari, Mr. Gunn, Mr. Svetz and Mr. Hibbs voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Sheers opposed the motion. Motion carried 5-1.

Miscellaneous Business

1. Request for a second 90-day extension of conditional final Subdivision Approval

John Furst, from Cuddy & Feder, LLP, representing Beacon Terminal Associates, requested an additional 90-day extension of the conditional final subdivision approval which was granted on September 12, 2006 (a 90-day extension was previously on February 13, 2007). He reported the following actions have taken place: the plat easements have been reviewed, approved and provided to Mayor for her signature; a request for a “No Action Letter” was submitted to the Attorney General’s office two weeks ago and should be finalized soon; and the City Engineer verbally indicated that no outstanding engineer comments remain. They are seeking an extension just to be sure that all items are finalized within the allotted time.

After considering the request, Mr. Sheers made a motion to grant a second 90-day extension as requested, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Miscellaneous

Carol Sawitz, 36 Victor Road, requested the board consider holding a second public hearing on the application for lot line realignment request submitted by Lennar Development Corp. on Victor Road. She explained several nearby property owners have attended the meetings, yet were not permitted to voice concerns since the preliminary approval was voted on in March. The City consultants agreed the public hearing could be re-opened because there has been a substantial change in the application. After considering the request, Mr. Sheers made a motion to set a public hearing for the subdivision amendment and lot line realignment for the month of June, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Architectural Review

Union Street – Single Family House (revised)

Members reviewed the revised front elevation drawings for a proposed single family house on Union Street. After considering the proposal, members made the following suggestions: the window on the second floor should be moved to the center on the ridge; all windows on the front elevation should be shuttered; a retaining wall should be installed to the right of the garage entrance; and the entrance stairs to the front porch should be perpendicular to the front rather than the side of the house.

Comprehensive Plan Review

A lengthy discussion took place regarding the draft comprehensive plan, with specific attention to proposed new roads and completion of some paper streets. Mr. Holmes explained the proposals are conceptual in nature and some ideas carried over from the previous comprehensive plan. Mr. Lanari pointed out areas that would be either impossible or extremely difficult to develop due to rock cuts, structures impeding the path or other physical constraints. Mr. Holmes explained the proposals are not binding but could be highlighted for further exploration. There is a great need for a connector from Route 52 to the correctional facility property and Interstate 84.

The City’s zoning districts have been updated over the last ten years to a point where the majority of areas are appropriately listed. Mr. Gunn explained the Main Street corridor has been selected as an area where further study is needed to revitalize and regenerate it liveliness. The LI zones are also in need of further consideration to make better planning sense. Traffic flow throughout the City has been given a higher priority, as well as the preservation of any open space. Conservation subdivisions are generally required, however, if the Planning Board felt it an unwise layout, they could appeal to the City Council. Land use review requirements and more specific guidelines for architectural review standards must be developed with the assistance of a professional. Mr. Hibbs reported the Village of Wappingers has expressed interest in creating similar standards and may be interested in sharing that task.

Mr. Gunn explained maintaining the comprehensive committee will aid the City Council in keeping the Comprehensive Plan a living and working document well into the future. Mr. Holmes explained the draft may be adopted as early as September 2007.

There was no further business to discuss and Mr. Sheers made a motion to close the meeting, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.