Beacon City Planning Board

December 11, 2007

A Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. with Acting Chairman Jay Sheers, Members Mike Lanari and John Gunn; Alternate Members Member Liz Strianese and Jim Svetz; City Engineer Art Tully; City Planner Chan Timmis (in for David Stolman); and Deputy Building Inspector David Buckley. Chairman Jay Hibbs was excused; Members Randall Williams, Anne Rapalje, and Spring Attaway were absent.

Mr. Sheers asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the November 13, 2007 meeting, or a motion to approve as circulated. Mr. Gunn made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mr. Lanari. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION (TWO

RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY DAVID VERDILE, 19 CRESCENT

DRIVE

Mr. Sheers opened the public hearing by indicating the notice was duly published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on December 5, 2007.

Mr. Tully reported the plan was reviewed and previous comments have all been adequately addressed. There were no further comments from the board.

Clark Gebman, 2 Wilson Street, reviewed the drawing and asked why the driveway was not provided with a turnaround consistent with typical practices of the Board. He questioned the Master Plan and expressed his opposition to the Planning Board’s approval of it.

Mr. Tully explained the proposed house has been provided with a turnaround area in the driveway. Mr. Gebman submitted documentation for the board’s consideration.

Jon Bodendorf of Hudson Land Design, described his client’s proposal to subdivide a .38 acre parcel of land located at 19 Crescent Drive, in the R1-7.5 zoning district, to create two lots – one for an existing house and one for a new single family dwelling. He announced the proposed driveway for the new single family house is provided with a turnaround area.

Tom and Johnna Kelly, 20 Heaney Drive, explained the subdivision plan is marked incorrectly in that the owner name should be “Faiella”, not “Saiella”. Ms. Kelly explained their house is directly below the proposed new home and they have major concerns regarding the disruption of the land above. It is on a steep slope which will be disturbed during building. Ms. Kelly explained there is a small piece of flat property behind their home and the slope beyond is almost perpendicular so debris from construction or excavation will fall into their back yard. Crescent Drive starts at Phillips Street and climbs to a peak which is directly behind their house. From that peak, the street then slopes downward to Rende Drive and the three homes to the left of their house, #18, #16 and #14 Heaney Drive, were required to have a retaining wall installed by the builder before mortgages would be approved. The 5 ft. high retaining wall that runs behind those three homes was designed to protect any runoff from the hill and it isn’t peaked like this property. The Verdile lot and proposed home would similarly be a problem for landslide and drainage and a retaining wall is not proposed. Ms. Kelly asked for the board’s help in protecting the safety of their home in an area of Mt. Beacon Park known for being built on a swamp with many, many water problems. Ms. Kelly reported that during the majority of her 37 years in the home she could not keep water out of the basement. Seven years ago she finally had a B-Dry system installed and they now have a dry basement. Ms. Kelly said drains and a sump pump system to carry stormwater out to the street raises concern that the pump will not function when the power goes out during a storm event. She asked the board to consider their concerns for excavating, water runoff and possible power failures affecting the sump pump before approving the subdivision. She felt there must be a reason that a house wasn’t built on that portion of property when the land was originally developed.

Ann Brout, 18 Heaney Drive, presented photographs of the retaining wall behind her house which was recently resurfaced. The photos showed the hill and retaining wall that spans the three properties mentioned by Ms. Kelly. Ms. Brout reported the property was left vacant for recreation use when the property was initially subdivided. That property was later sold and after houses were built there water began seeping into their basements. Ms. Brout explained they had to dig around their foundation and install a new drainage system which was very costly. She asked who will be responsible if the construction of this house results in water problems. Ms. Brout explained they have spent a significant amount of money to rectify their problem and they want to protect that investment.

Mark Broat, 18 Heaney Drive, reported the retaining wall was required by the City when the houses were originally built. That wall goes 5-6 ft. below surface level and over the years they have been required to maintain it. There is constant erosion from water coming down the hill. The property behind Faiella’s (Kelly) drops down on a 55 to 60 degree angle and runoff will be difficult to control. Mr. Broat complimented the City for the work that has been done to improve water problems on streets located at the foot of the mountain. He feared that changing the topography of land will adversely affect his property. He asked for some type of guarantee that this project will not create a water problem in their basement.

Mr. Sheers explained the applicant is not obligated to correct existing problems however the situation cannot be made worse as a result of the development. He shared their concern for flooding during power outages.

Mr. Bodendorf explained the City also had concern for drainage and as a result he worked with the City engineer to address the issue. Erosion control methods will be incorporated and will consist of a silt fence barrier at the end of the slope where grading ends and along the driveway so adjacent properties will not be affected. He explained a foundation drain system and sump pump will be installed to transport water to a catch basin on Crescent Drive. There is no need for a generator because the sump pump system is powered by water pressure.

Mr. Broat expressed concern that the City already knows there will be a problem or they would not have required a sump pump system. He reiterated his worry that water problems will prevail. Mr. Broat asked for a written guarantee that there will be no wet basements as a result of this construction.

Mr. Tully explained foundation drains are required by the City and due to the topography, the applicant was advised that a pump system feeding into the City’s drainage system would be required. Mr. Broat felt a pump cannot handle run off in the spring because water runs downhill like a stream.

A lengthy debate took place between the applicant’s engineer, the City’s engineer, the Kelly’s and Broat’s regarding potential drainage problems and preventive measures. Ms. Kelly explained the B-Dry system installed to protect her basement is only guaranteed if the lay of the land is not disturbed. Mr. Kelly reported the property is made up of fill, not natural earth, and is not safe to build a house.

Mr. Tully explained he will revisit the site and take each public comment into consideration. A new catch basin will be installed to take water from the front portions of the house, including water from the roof, driveway and footing drains. The only water that will not be sent to the catch basin will be from the rear portion of the house.

Mr. Gebman announced that this paperwork approaches a systematic pattern of the City’s failure to “wrap its arms around a community at the base of a mountain”.

Mr. Tully explained all public comments will be taken into consideration and a site visit with the Kelly’s and Broat’s will be scheduled to review and evaluate their concerns.

Mr. Broat asked if the house would be sold or if it would be used by the Verdile’s. Mr. Tully explained no matter whom the developer is or who lives in the home, the construction plan must stand on its own merits.

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

After considering the need to revisit the site with neighbors, Mr. Gunn made a motion to reopen the public hearing for the month of January, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A public hearing for this item will be held at the January 2008 Planning Board meeting.

ITEM NO. 2 CONTINUE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN

APPROVAL AMENDMENT (STORAGE BUILDING), TO ADD LOADING

DOCKS AND 2 BATHROOMS, SUBMITTED BY FISHKILL CREEK

DEVELOPMENT CORP., 39 FRONT STREET

Bob Chuilli, President of 39 Fishkill Creek Development, described changes made to the site plan for loading docks and two small additions. Mr. Timmis reported his review comments from September have not been completely resolved with this submission. He advised Mr. Chuilli that a meeting with his professional would be beneficial in resolving the outstanding issues and better explain what needs to be done to the site plan. A truck maneuvering plan showing turning templates on both sides of the dock for large delivery trucks must be provided on the plan. Mr. Timmis had a concern for noise considering the close proximity of residences. He asked that decibel level information for idling trucks be provided. An overall comprehension of the parking requirements for all proposed uses must be presented. He recommended a meeting with Mr. Chuilli’s design professional to discuss parking, lighting, noise and overall site plan issues.

Mr. Tully explained this plan needs to be coordinated with the generic site plan in order to clarify discrepancies between the two. Two plans are needed – one specific to this area and one for an overall understanding of the site. Based on inverts shown on the plan, the sanitary sewer line running from the proposed addition behind the loading dock area crosses the proposed swale and appears to be coming out of the ground. Storm drainage and the oil/water separator cannot be tied into the sanitary sewer system. Areas of macadam and gravel must be clearly specified on the plan. Mr. Tully explained more details are needed and offered to meet with Mr. Chuilli’s design professional to discuss the plan.

Architectural Review

1. Single Family House – 360 Liberty Street (revised)

Members reviewed a revised elevation drawing for a single family house on Liberty Street created by DeRonde Design Associates. After considering the proposal, Mr. Gunn made a motion to approve the amended plan subject to changing the roof pitch to 9/12 and adding windows on the blank gable side of the house, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Miscellaneous Business

Gebman Applications – Liberty Street and Stone Street Subdivisions

City Attorney Pisanelli reported last month the Planning Board made a recommendation that Mr. Gebman go to the Zoning Board of Appeals due to a discrepancy between the flood damage prevention law and zoning ordinance. Building Inspector/Zoning Administrator Tim Dexter reviewed the law and submitted a memorandum of his findings. He determined that, “ . . . the provisions outlined in Section 223-12F can be calculated after any filling is done provided that the fill has been placed in accordance with the Flood Damage Prevention Law. Therefore, relief from Section 223-12F is not necessary for this application to proceed.” After some discussion and consideration, Mr. Gunn made a motion to formally withdraw the Planning Board’s referral of Mr. Gebman’s application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

1. Comprehensive Plan Review

Chris Holmes reported the City Council held one public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan and has another scheduled for Monday, December 17, 2007. As required in the City Charter, the City Council formally referred the plan to the Planning Board. Since originally drafted, the plan was amended and is now prepared for adoption. The Planning Board must formally, by resolution, make a recommendation for the City Council’s consideration at their public hearing on Monday. Mr. Holmes explained the architectural review portion of the plan was amended as previously recommended by the Planning Board.

City Attorney Pisanelli directed the Board’s attention to the document submitted by Clark Gebman, specifically the second page which made reference to his proposed subdivision along Fishkill Creek. In that letter, Mr. Gebman asked the Planning Board not to endorse the proposed Master Plan due to alleged errors in wetland mapping that he previously highlighted to City Council.

Members expressed concern over the context of the document which conveyed possible personal liability and possible litigation by Mr. Gebman. City Attorney Pisanelli explained he wanted board members to be aware of the document. He informed them that the City has both liability insurance and public officer’s insurance that covers volunteers. City Attorney Pisanelli explained volunteers should not be sued individually but legal action by others cannot be controlled. Mr. Sheers felt if there are errors on the Master Plan maps they should be made as accurate as possible.

Mr. Holmes reported he spoke to Mr. Gebman about wetlands but was unsure of the specific properties. The draft plan evolved from previous plans and maps which may be the source of referenced errors. Mr. Holmes was somewhat frustrated because the Council is only a week away from adopting the plan and this issue only comes to his attention now. He reported wetland information provided on the map comes from state and federal sources. When a Site Plan is prepared, wetlands are more specifically delineated so whatever is shown on a wetlands map no longer remains significant. Information provided on a Site Plan is more accurate because areas are located by a surveyor. Mr. Holmes reported he has no personal knowledge of erroneous information on the comprehensive mapping.

After some consideration, Ms. Strianese made a motion to endorse the Comprehensive Plan with specific focus on previous recommendations made regarding language for architectural review, small business parking requirements and problems with stormwater runoff, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

There was no further business to discuss and Ms. Strianese made a motion to close the meeting, seconded by Mr. Gunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.