Docstoc

UNAPPROVED

Document Sample
UNAPPROVED Powered By Docstoc
					PINE PLAINS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2006 IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bartles, Chairman Bruce Pecorella Jon DePreter Kate Osofsky Ken Mecciarello Brian Coons Vikki Soracco Gregg Pulver, Town Supervisor Drew Weaver, Building Inspector Rick Butler, Town Councilman 3 members of the public

ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT:

Chairman Bartles called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. LOUIS GINOCCHIO: Ginocchio stated that the medical office that he owns has been vacant for approximately one year. He has allowed the Paige George Foundation to use the space. He now has a potential renter who would like to operate a flower shop there. He asked the Board what he would need to do to have the flower shop open their business. Drew Weaver advised him he would need a building permit and suggested he come before the Board. Ginocchio stated that it would be going from commercial use to commercial use and asked the Board for their opinion on how he should proceed. Bartles asked if the footprint would be increased. Ginocchio stated no. Ginocchio stated there would be no construction going on but he would be taking a couple of walls down inside. Bartles stated that normally the Board has treated a change of use from commercial to commercial as not needing a site plan review as long as there wasn’t significant building. Bartles stated that it doesn’t fit within the criteria of the moratorium because it doesn’t require a site plan review and the footprint is not being increased. Motion by DePreter; second by Pecorella to ask the Building Inspector to issue a building permit. All in favor. Supervisor Pulver addressed the Board with regard to the variance process for the Mike George property. Pulver stated that he thought it would be best to discuss the issue and find out where the process broke down with regard to the variance. Pulver stated that he has received an official submission for application for a variance from the moratorium law. Bartles stated that the history was that the Board was told they wanted to rebuild and have two apartments upstairs and an educational facility downstairs. When the Board went to a site plan review it changed to four apartments upstairs and two commercial uses downstairs which had to have a variance. Bartles stated that their intent was to make sure that the Town Board knew what was going on and that they were all on the same page. Pulver stated that originally they didn’t know much which is why they were referred to the Planning Board. Pulver stated that the only way to find out what the applicant was actually planning was to send them to the Planning Board to go through the process because they would need maps and drawings. Pulver stated that the Town Board’s job is not to review the plan but to review it only with regard to the moratorium law as to whether or not to issue a variance. Pulver stated that if the applicant can’t get the plan in front of the Planning Board in an official capacity, there would be no way to negotiate

whether it is one, two or four units, without going through the process. Bartles stated that it is clear in the moratorium that it is illegal to conduct a site plan review without having a variance from the Town Board. Pecorella asked how the applicant has gotten as far as he has without anyone knowing what he wants to do. Pulver stated he got a building permit for a two family home. Pulver stated he could build the two-family home larger under the building permit because there is no review. Osofsky asked if Weaver needs to go in and see what he is doing. Weaver stated at this point it is ambiguous. Pulver stated he is not advocating for the applicant. Pulver stated that his number one complaint as Town Supervisor has been about the Perrotti properties. He stated now someone wants to do something and maybe it is too much but that is up to the Planning Board to decide. Pulver stated that the mechanism has to be in front of the Planning Board. Bartles stated that he feels the mechanism is very clear. He stated that the Planning Board asked the Town Board if they were going to issue a variance. Pulver stated that in his opinion the applicant meets the criteria to receive a variance under financial hardship. Discussion followed. Pulver stated that they now have more information than they did a week ago which is a single commercial use downstairs, two two-bedroom apartments upstairs, and two one-bedroom apartments upstairs. Pulver stated that when the Town Board gives a variance it is only that they met the requirements for a variance under the moratorium law. Bartles stated that what the Planning Board was asking was for the Town Board to take the first step and send it through to them. Bartles stated the first step is that the Town Board has to grant the variance. Pulver stated that the first step is that he comes to the Planning Board to see if they would entertain the project and then it goes to the Town Board. Bartles stated that the Board asked two questions in their discussions. One was does it represent a hardship and they felt it didn’t. The other was would this be consistent with the uses that the Zoning Commission had in mind. He stated that DePreter stated it was not. DePreter updated the Board as the Zoning Commission did vote this evening to change that and it would be an acceptable use of that property now. Pulver stated he is going to give the Town Board the application for variance the following evening. They may or may not act on it on the 16th and it will get referred back to the Board to see if they would entertain the project under a site plan review. Bartles stated that it doesn’t need to get sent back to the Planning Board because the consensus of the Board was that if the Town Board gives a variance, they will conduct a site plan review. DePreter agreed with Bartles. Discussion followed. Bartles stated that when you look at the variance procedure, public hearings and SEQR are supposed to be conducted. He stated that this will have to be hammered out with the Planning Board’s procedures because you can’t conduct two SEQR’s. Bartles stated that when he asks for something with regard to the project, he wants it and not someone’s opinion. Bartles stated that they had a lot of questions that the Board was told they had no right to ask. Pulver asked by whom. Bartles stated Mike George. Bartles stated there was a lot of history with the project and not all of it was pleasant. Discussion followed. Rick Butler stated that the communication difficulties have been with the applicant and both Boards. Weaver and Pulver stated that they have both made it clear to the applicant that there will come a point when he will not be able to proceed. Bartles asked if there were working plans. Weaver stated yes. Bartles stated that this conversation should have taken place many months ago. Bartles stated that if it fits the variance criteria and the Town Board gives it to them, the Planning Board will conduct a site plan review. He stated there has never been any question about that. Pulver stated that he advised the applicant that he could end up with a two-family house. Discussion followed. Bartles asked about the Soracco variance. Pulver stated he has received nothing from her. Short discussion followed. Osofsky asked what we had in our file on the George property. Proper stated there was no map and the Board has asked for a list of items at the last meeting the George’s attended. She also stated there was no application submitted yet. Discussion followed. Pecorella stated that there should be written communication and not verbal between the Boards and the applicant. Pecorella stated that they need to keep emotions out of it. Discussion followed. Short discussion of Stissing Farms followed. Weaver asked where they were with Nextel. Bartles stated that there is an issue with the wording of the resolution and he will resolve it. Short discussion followed.

Bartles stated that the Board hasn’t given final approval to the Library yet. He stated that the only thing they should have done is send it through to the County and he doesn’t believe it was sent. Bartles stated he will send it through to make through it is okay. He stated it should come back as a local. Motion by DePreter; second by Coons to accept minutes of October 11, 2006. All in favor. Motion by DePreter; second by Coons to accept minutes of October 25, 2006. All in favor. Motion by Pecorella to adjourn; second by DePreter. All in favor.

Respectfully submitted by:

Nancy E. Proper Secretary

Donald Bartles, Jr. Chairman


				
DOCUMENT INFO