A
Planning Board meeting was held on
Mr. Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the
minutes of the
Attorney Joseph Cantanio noted an error on the last page, second paragraph - the roof slope should be presented to the front, not the gable end as indicated on the record. Ms. Rapalje made a motion to approve the minutes with the noted correction, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL, CHANGE USE OF EXISTING
INCLUDE RETAIL, BUSINESS AND METAL FABRICATION, SUBMITTED BY
IG4, LLC,
Aryeh
Siegel, and owner Lee Balter, described proposed changes to two buildings on
the Tallix property located at the east end of
Mr. Timmis reported the site plan submission has improved with only a limited number of comments remaining. He had concern for the road that narrows in width from 25 ft. to 18 ft. therefore asked that it be widened to at least 20 ft. from the first westerly speed bump to the entrance. Mr. Timmis felt it would ease the tightness near the raised landscape islands in front of Building #5 and landscape areas near the gate. Mr. Balter explained that portion of the road is owned by the City and until a transfer of land agreement is arranged he has no right to repave it. Mr. Russo reported the City Administrator informed him that the City Assessor reviewed the value of that section of road therefore believed a land swap would be appropriate. Once that transfer is approved the road can be widened to 20 ft.
Mr. Timmis noted the future sculpture garden was shifted toward the westerly end however the prior plan had numerous shrubs and ground cover not currently shown on the plan. Mr. Siegel explained new shade trees will be concentrated near the entrance area and the remainder of land will be grass covered. Mr. Balter explained he was awarded a grant to create a landscaped arrival area which was transferred to Max Protetch who purchased the Founder’s House on site. That project was never completed so the plant list was diminished and the layout changed. After some discussion regarding the need for additional plantings, board members believed the current proposal would be adequate.
Lastly, Mr. Timmis advised the applicant to remove the handicap space near Building #5 because it is too far away from the retail portion of the building. He asked that elevation drawings include the westerly and northerly portions of the buildings.
Discussion returned to the land swap with the City. City Attorney Pisanelli explained that although he has not seen a complete map, the City has no use for the portion of property and the City Assessor determined it has no value to the City. Legal descriptions for both parcels must be created and presented to the City Council for approval.
Mr. Russo
noted City water and sewer mains run through the Tallix property and easements should
be indicated on the plan, including their purpose and width. The automatic gate near the east end of
There were no comments from the public and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Balter expressed concern over the time it may take to complete paperwork for the land swap because he wanted to complete road improvements before the paving season ends. After some discussion and assurance that IG4, LLC will diligently pursue the land swap, members felt it would be appropriate to allow paving to take place; the automatic gate will not be installed until after the land swap.
Mr. Sheers made a motion to issue a negative SEQRA declaration for the proposed project, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Rapalje made a motion to grant conditional final Site Plan Approval based on (1) the applicant fulfilling comments outlined by board consultants, and elimination of the gate if a land swap as discussed does not take place; or (2) the applicant fulfilling comments outlined, and if the land swap does take place, the gate location remains as indicated on the plan. The motion was seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ITEM NO. 2
CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
(TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY DAVID VERDILE, 19
CRESCENT DRIVE
Jon Bodendorf of Hudson Land Design explained his client was before the board in September for a two lot subdivision of property located at 19 Crescent Drive. At that time they were referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance, which has since been secured.
Mr. Russo expressed concern for proposed grading because it appears water will run from the existing two-story house toward the proposed house. The area between the two homes should be re-graded with a slight swale line to redirect drainage runoff.
After some consideration, Ms. Rapalje made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of December, seconded by Ms. Attaway. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Architectural
Review
1. Single Family
House –
The plan for a proposed single family house was revised and resubmitted for review. Several residents of the neighborhood in attendance submitted written comments. Mr. Buckley presented the revised drawing and explained the roof pitch was changed from 12/7 to 12/5. Mr. Hibbs felt the revision was did not provide a substantial amount of change in response to comments from the last meeting. They asked for reorientation of the ridge line and a decrease from 2 to 1.5 stories in height. The height of the house was lowered by three feet. Ms. Strianese also noted they felt the structure was inappropriate considering existing housing stock in the neighborhood. Mr. Hibbs reported the structure should be a maximum of 1.5 stories, and the gable should not face the street. Mr. Lanari believed the amended proposal which reduced the height of the structure by three feet was to fulfill the request to reduce it to 1.5 stories. Mr. Lanari reported he became familiar with the neighborhood 38 years ago while delivering newspapers. A handful of new houses have been built since then and the development is a mixture of different house styles. Mr. Lanari believes the proposed house would fit in well and would allow new owners to enjoy the neighborhood as others have done.
Attorney Joe Cantania, representing developer Paul Bernasconi, explained the proposed house is a two story, side hall Colonial house with a 12/5 roof. Mr. Cantania presented photographs illustrating a mix of housing stock, including ranches, capes and two story Colonials; the neighborhood is not monolithic.
Mr. Cantania reported at the last meeting, the opinion was that the peak of the house should not face the road. In response, he explained some people would rather see the peak of a roof rather than a long roof expanse facing a street. He presented numbered photo exhibits of houses within the development showing design elements similar to the proposed structure, specifically with peaks and rooflines perpendicular to the road. Mr. Cantania reported out of 46 units in the neighborhood, approximately 10% have this type of design element.
Mr. Cantania presented photo exhibits of two story
houses in the development; one two-story house with an 8/12 roof (
Mr. Hibbs argued that in almost every case presented by Mr. Cantania, there is a substantial roof facing the road, including the two story house. He explained the board did not object to a two story structure but because its presentation appears to be 2.5 stories. A roof slope toward the road presents itself as much smaller. Mr. Cantania explained the statute is written to allow a wide range of designs, it does not allow an expression of personal preference or what would be desirable or not desirable. The statute calls for denial only if the presentation is excessively out of character. Mr. Cantania cited statute terms “excessive similarity or dissimilarity” and contended the term “excessive” is critical to the intent of the law so as not to be vague and ambiguous. Further, he read the law, “leading to inappropriate excessive similarity or dissimilarity, leading to inappropriateness or poor quality of exterior appearance erected in residential and commercial districts in the city, adversely effect such beauty and symmetry as well as the desirability of surrounding properties and neighborhood areas . . .” Mr. Sheers felt the proposed house would adversely affect neighboring properties, particularly because it is located on a steep slope and will appear to tower over downhill neighbors. Discussion took place regarding placement of the house on the lot with particular emphasis to the front yard setback in relation to adjacent houses. Mr. Cantania explained this house will meet all setbacks and no variances are necessary. He pointed out a number of homes in the development were built parallel to the road due to lot size restrictions, and many required variances. Mr. Cantania explained he and his client feel this proposal is a very nice looking house and it is an efficient use of the lot because it conforms to setbacks outlined in Beacon’s zoning code. Mr. Cantania presented photo exhibits of houses citing differences between existing and required setbacks.
Ms. Strianese explained the board looks at properties directly adjacent and across the street to form their decisions. Mr. Cantania explained the neighborhood is a self-contained subdivision and review would be restricted if only adjacent homes are considered. Ms. Strianese explained they are seeking to find homes that relate, have a rhythm and display some sort of relationship between them. Mr. Cantania contended that they are not trying to construct a Victorian house in neighborhood of ranches; this neighborhood of 46 homes is not owned to one particular style. Mr. Hibbs explained there is a feel for the character – something a little closer to the ground that appears less vertical. In all the presented cases there was a substantial roof that sloped back to diminish the apparent façade which is the character the board is trying to achieve. Mr. Hibbs believed the proposed house does not manage to satisfy that goal.
Discussion returned to the alignment of the house on the property and it was reiterated that it will be appropriately aligned and meet all required setbacks. Ms. Attaway felt the revised submission was not adequate. Mr. Sheers felt the written comments submitted to the board should be considered before making a final decision. Mr. Lanari objected to Mr. Sheers’ comment because he lives in the development. Mr. Sheers apologized for not identifying himself as a neighbor and explained notation was made at the last meeting; he announced that he has no financial interest in this matter which is the criteria for recusal. City Attorney Pisanelli said he typically advises members that if they can be objective then there is no legal reason for disqualification. Mr. Lanari explained he was not at the October meeting when the public was allowed to speak however felt there may be an underlying tone to prevent a house from being built altogether. He feels it is a beautiful neighborhood and someone should be able to build on the vacant lot. Mr. Lanari was of the opinion that the board may have been overly critical at the last meeting due to the climate in the room. He feels there is nothing wrong with the proposed house.
Mr. Cantania announced this is the first he heard of Mr. Sheers’ residency. He asked the record to reflect that he does not know whether financial interest is implicated but certainly pressure by other close neighbors is a factor that should not be involved in the decision to be made. Also, he noted this is not a public hearing, whether comments are presented in writing or orally, it is about allowing the matter open to the public. Mr. Cantania explained if it was a public hearing, they would have their own troupe in attendance; he felt it unfair to consider the submitted letters.
In response, Mr. Hibbs explained that although he understands Mr. Lanari’s statement regarding pressure that may have been brought to bear from the public, he asserted the statements did not change his position. Mr. Hibbs reported he has been to the neighborhood several times and was surprised at the latest submission considering the board’s recommended changes. Although unsure of other members’ opinions, Mr. Hibbs said this presentation has not changed his mind. Mr. Cantania respected all individual opinions and thanked members for their time.
Ms.
Attaway made a motion to deny the revised proposal as submitted for the same
reasons stated previously, seconded by Ms. Strianese. On roll call Ms. Attaway, Ms. Strianese, Ms.
Rapalje, Mr. Svetz and Mr. Hibbs voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Lanari voted
against the motion; and Mr. Sheers abstained.
Motion carried
Mr. Cantania explained they are not here to threaten litigation, but to merely construct a house with a profitable sale and square footage that makes sense on a lot this size. He feels this particular house design is perfectly suited for the lot and the neighborhood. Mr. Hibbs explained the board is not in any way trying to prevent a house from being built on this lot. Mr. Cantania asked Mr. Hibbs what would be done with the written submissions. Mr. Hibbs said he would consult the City Attorney; City Attorney Pisanelli advised that he would take the letters and look into the appropriate action.
2. Single Family
House –
Members reviewed a revised elevation drawing for a
single family house on
3. Single Family
House –
Members
reviewed an elevation drawing for a proposed single family house at
There was no further business to discuss and Ms.
Rapalje made a motion to close the meeting, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at