Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson, Nadine D. Carney.
PRESENT:
David O’Halloran, Alternate
Frank Striano, Sr.
Anthony Kawalchuck
Nadine Carney, Chairperson
Melvyn Tapper-7:05PM
William De Graw
Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
Robert Gaydos
ABSENT:
(none)
Pledge to the Flag.
Because there was not a full Board at this meeting, Alternate Mr. O’Halloran would be able to vote and make motions.
CONTINTUED APPLICATION REVIEW
STREAMSIDE ESATES, INC- Special Use Permit for expansion of existing mobile home park, formerly known as Tessler’s, Cherrytown Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map # 67-2-43.14, 43.15, 43.112, & 43.113, R-1 District
Mr. Baum was present along with engineer, Barry Medenbach and Attorney, John Sisti on behalf of his Application.
The Chairperson noted that the Board has received two letters of concern that are on record. Francis Gray letter dated September 21, 2004 and letter from Rebecca Sinos dated September 13, 2004.
She continued that there had been correspondence between the Planning Board and the Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq. regarding the possibility of establishing a maintenance escrow account for the road and the utilities should the landlord fail to make necessary repairs. This was a non binding recommendation from the Ulster County Planning Board and it was looked into. The Board was advised by Mrs. Christiana that she had consulted with the Association of Towns and our Town doesn’t have the mechanism in its laws to require this as a condition of granting a Special Use Permit. At this time it is not an option to our Town. She was aware that it is being reviewed for the future mobile home park law, but it doesn’t affect this Application.
Mr. Ricks believed that Hidden Forrest Estates had a bond.
The Chairperson believed it was for completion of improvements which can be requested by the Board.
Mr. Medenbach didn’t believe that the bond was still in effect. He remembers that it was in connection with the sewer treatment plant but was no longer in effect.
The Chairperson noted that some of the comments received in writing were in regards to the Archeological Study that there were some items still being researched. The last correspondence that the Board has from the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) was from July 3, 2003 which stated that based upon their review that the OPRHP didn’t have concerns regarding the project and it’s potential to impact above grade structures. They noted that there were Archeological issues that remained, and they were currently being addressed and would be resolved.
Mr. Medenbach noted that all of the digging at the site has been done to identify what artifacts may exist on the site. They have all been discovered and there is nothing that Mr. Medenbach’s office considers significant. The State is interested in little chards that were found and they are in the laboratory being analyzed. When those reports are done they get filed with the State and the State says the review is complete. They indicated in the letter that they wanted assurance that the Applicant followed through with all of the lab work and filed all of the necessary reports. The Applicant had two options in regards to this. 1) To designate the area to have no disturbance and leave a 50’ buffer around it to leave it alone or 2) to recover all of the artifacts. The Applicant chose to recover all of the artifacts.
At 7:05PM, Mr. Tapper joined the meeting. The Chairperson noted that because there was now a full Board, Mr. O’Halloran’s participation was for information only.
The Chairperson noted that the Board has also received correspondence from the Dept. of Environmental Conservation dated September 14, 2004 giving a Notice of Incomplete Application for the Stormwater Management Plan.
The Chairperson noted that another concern that was brought forth in the letters was that there was a report done in March from the consulting Engineer at Brinnier & Larios, PE had made comments on the Stormwater Management Plan, but since that date the Board has received much more comprehensive plan and designed that has been sent to the DEC as well and there review is really the bottom line.
Mr. Ricks questioned what else was needed to get a complete application for the Stormwater Management Plan to the NYS DEC?
Mr. Medenbach answered that they needed the Planning Board’s approval. What the NYS DEC deems as a ‘complete application’ is when the Plan is complete and approved by the Planning Board and the Ulster County Health Dept. They won’t consider the application complete until they are ready to issue the permit. It would be a condition of the Planning Board’s approval that the necessary permits be obtained from the NYS DEC. The Planning Board is Lead Agency.
Mr. Medenbach explained two things that were submitted for this meeting. One of them was the limited disturbance that the Board had requested to be placed on the plan and another was the detail for the lamp fixtures. Mr. Baum submitted the basic rules and regulations that could be incorporated into the conditions of approval; these would always be in effect. There were additional rules that are currently in place, but some of them may change as the management of the park sees fit. He depicted on the plans that sheet 9 had changed to show the limit of disturbance. He showed where the tree vegetation would stay, but up by the road would need to be re-graded to get the correct grade for the one access road. There would also be clearing where the septic and where each of the mobile homes would be placed. In the wood line, you can see where there is clearing for the road and the individual sites.
The Chairperson found the legend on sheet 9 to be confusing.
Mr. Medenbach agreed noting that there was a typo that was misleading. Sheets 3 & 4 show the actual detailed grading with 2’ contours. It is very detailed.
Chairperson Carney questioned why there wasn’t a luminaries plan done that would show how the light from each lamp post at each residence would affect the surrounding area.
Mr. Medenbach replied that the Board didn’t request it. The Board asked for a detail of the lamp posts. There was no specific street lighting.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned that being that this is the first time that all members including the alternate were in attendance, was Mr. O’Halloran as the alternate allowed to participate?
The Chairperson noted that Mr. O’Halloran has participated in the past and when there is a full Board it is announced that Mr. O’Halloran can not make any motions or participate in any votes. She noted that Mr. O’Halloran has been actively involved in this Application throughout its duration and she would be happy for any input that he may have. She noted that she has decided to abstain from voting and making motions because she has become employed by the firm of the consulting engineer, Brinnier & Larios, PE.
Mr. De Graw stated that after reflection on the project and at the request of the Applicant that he would recuse himself from this Application.
Because of Mr. De Graw’s recusal, Mr. O’Halloran would be able to make motions and vote on this Application.
The Chairperson noted that based on the continued review of this project and going through past files and talking to other members and the Secretary, she has put together an outline for conditions that would apply to this project to support a motion to go forward. They are as follows:
1. Obtain Approvals for Water and Sewage facilities from the Ulster County Health Department, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan & State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Sanitary Discharge from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Completed Archaeology Review by the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation.
2. The three contiguous but separate tax parcels shall be combined as one tax parcel and no further subdivision of such permitted.
3. Provide & maintain screening as shown on the plans, trees to be planted, at a planting height of 6 ft., prior to any new excavation and/or construction related to this expansion.
4. Maintain buffer area along the Mombaccus Creek as shown as Limit of disturbance along Stream
5. Provide & maintain Split rail fence along stream as shown on plans
6. Provide & maintain barriers at property lines at access trails (to prohibit motor vehicle use such as atv’s)
7. Complete installation of roadway, storm water facilities and utilities (including water and sewer) or provide the town with a bond for uncompleted portion of such.
8. Name internal roads; require signage & lot numbers visible to roadside, this information to be provided to the fire and police agencies for emergency response.
9. Provide and maintain pedestrian & bike path by annual strip painting and keeping clear of debris (this area to be inspected after each storm event and cleaned as needed)
10. Provide & maintain bus shelter as shown on plans
11. On-site manager along with contact information to be provided to code enforcement officer w/ annual fee.
12. Park Rules to be submitted, and any amendments there to, to the Code Enforcement officer for review and approval.
13. Provide and maintain recreation facilities as shown on plans including but not limited to the playground area, basketball court, and picnic area.
14. Repair & maintain entrance sign
15. Coordinate with Kerhonkson Post Office for most appropriate means of mail handling.
16. Shall comply with all regulations as set forth in the Town of Rochester Zoning Chapter 140, Section 140-25 Mobile Homes, Mobile Home Parks, Travel Trailers and Travel Trail Camps
17. All conditions of this permit shall be met prior to operation and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Code Enforcement Office
18. Applicant shall apply to the Code Enforcement Office and Planning Board, if necessary, for any change of use
19. Applicant shall comply with all NYS Building and Fire Codes and shall apply to the Code Enforcement Office for all required permits
20. No further expansion of this use is permitted.
~
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if the Applicant understood condition #2 that all contiguous tax parcels shall be combined?
Mr. Medenbach believed that the Applicant had intended to do this and had no problem.
Mr. Ricks questioned what the height of the trees would be? Is everything going in according to plan?
The Chairperson noted that these trees are being planted on a berme that is already 3-4’ high berme with a 4’ minimum tree height at planting. She believed the code called for 6’ trees in height at plantings.
Mr. O’Halloran has realized that in previous applications they have stuck to the Town Code with the 6’ high trees at planting and that is what the Board would like to see.
The Applicant agreed to plant the trees at 6’ high.
Mr. Medenbach agreed with the Board that the trees would be put in prior to any construction.
As there were no further comments on the listed conditions, the Chairperson asked if there was a motion for Conditional Preliminary Approval for Streamside Estates including conditions 1-20 as read?
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for approval based on the previously read conditions 1-20 for Special Use Permit for expansion of Mobile Home Park known as Streamside Estates. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion.
Discussion on motion:
Mr. Tapper stated that he intended to vote against this project and he wanted to list his reasons for such. He has visited Aloha Acres, Mr. Baum’s other park in Plattekil. It was very large, probably two or three times the size of what is proposed for Streamside Estates. He found the trailer lots to be well kept and neat. The roadways and the trailer park as a whole were very well maintained. He felt that it was an asset to their community rather than a detriment. He asked around about Mr. Baum and found that he had an excellent reputation. If he says he is going to do something, he does it. Even though he intends to vote against the project, it is no reflection on Mr. Baum.
One reason that Mr. Tapper is not considering in his decision is traffic. The park will definitely have an impact on traffic, but there is a lot of undeveloped land in that area of the Town. Probably in 3-5 years, there will be an additional 60 homes up that way and the traffic will be impacted any way. He knows another concern is what this park will do to the tax base, but it certainly isn’t going to be enough of an addition to the taxes to compensate for redoing 15-20 miles of roads.
In regards to the school system—it will definitely be impacted, but the Town is growing with more people and more homes in the Town. The idea that there will be more taxes if it is on an individual home and the tax base will be expanded, that may be true, but school taxes are going to go up every year until the State Legislature changes the method of funding. Until then everyone will have to bear the burden.
There were comments from the public that Mr. Tapper found offensive. Some comments were that people didn’t want a mobile home park on the road because there was enough vandalism already. Someone was concerned that there would be uneducated people in the mobile homes. When the projection of children was discussed that there would be an additional two kids per mobile home on average, someone thought it would be more like 4 or 5 kids in a mobile home. These types of comments give the impression that just because you live in a mobile home or mobile home park you are an ignorant thief who procreates like a rabbit. These comments were found to be divisive, mean spirited and destructive rather than constructive and Mr. Tapper certainly didn’t take any of these comments into his decision making process.
One of Mr. Tapper’s reasons for voting against the project is that he feels it is an overuse of the property. As stated by the public, 1 acre per mobile home is a minimum. The Applicant’s engineer has said that the parcel can support 60 mobile homes. But for how long? How long before the water table goes down and they end up with water problems or before it affects the water table of the other homes in the area? This is a very dense concentration of homes in a small area and on a small parcel of land.
How long can the septic system absorb that kind of waste water before it begins to fail? The property is on a slope and everything is going to run right toward the creek.
Mr. Tapper felt that this was an environmentally sensitive area and would be a disaster if any pollutants would run into the creek. It is a desirable location because it is near the creek and the aesthetics are good, but the proximity to the creek makes it extremely vulnerable to pollution.
There is going to be an enormous amount of run off when the land is disturbed in the construction phase. After the construction is done there will be a lot of run off from the driveways and roads. All of that run off will be heading toward the creek and carrying with it any pollutants that may be lying on the ground.
Even though the Board can’t take the taxes into consideration, the impact that the project will have on the socio-economic conditions of the Town can be taken into consideration. This will have a heavy adverse impact on the economic conditions of the Town. It will be an added burden at a time when the Town can’t really afford added burdens.
The People of the Town, just don’t want it. The Applicant has rights, but so do the people of the Town of Rochester. This Application has been pending for a year and a half and not once has Mr. Tapper had any one approach him and say that this mobile home park is a needed asset for the Town. If there is a silent majority who really wanted this park to go forward, they had a year and a half to come forward and no one ever did.
Mr. Tapper feels strongly that the Town is in need of affordable housing, and he does believe that mobile homes and parks are affordable housing. He felt this park is too large for the amount of land that it is on and it is in the wrong place.
Mr. Tapper has put a lot of time and effort into reviewing this Application. There have been some comments from the audience that this was a done deal as soon as it came in and that the Board doesn’t listen to any one and just do what ever they want. This is untrue. He has looked long and hard at this decision and he doesn’t know how anyone else on the Board is going to vote, but he knows that each member has put a lot of time into this Application review as well along with a lot of time and thought into how they are going to vote.
Mr. Ricks was also very concerned about the septics for that many mobile homes in that area. Once the Board had received plans prepared by a New York State Licensed Engineer, and once the Planning Board hired a consulting Engineer who reviewed the plans and worked with the Applicant’s Engineer to revise the plans he, Mr. Ricks felt more confident. It passed through two (2) separate Engineers—one independent and separately hired by the Town. It will also be reviewed by the Ulster County Health Dept. and the NYS DEC and Mr. Ricks knows that if the design isn’t totally up to the standards of these agencies, they won’t approve it. He felt that everyone in the audience and out there has there expert opinion, but no one is a licensed professional Engineer like the people at the NYS DEC and the Ulster County Health Dept. and at Brinnier & Larios, PE. He didn’t understand how Board members could second guess these professionals. Everyone can have their opinion, but Mr. Ricks had to go with the professionals in this area.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the two (2) Engineers—the Applicant’s and the Town’s consultant (Brinnier & Larios, PE) are the backbone of the reasons on why the Board voted for a Negative Declaration in respect to potential impacts on the environment. The most difficult part of this Application is Town sentiment and the individuals against the project. The Board respects them and their reasons for not wanting the project. Taxes were often brought up as well as property values, however this Applicant bought the property and placed the Application in front of the Board under the guidelines of the current Zoning, which the Board members are responsible to adhere to. There was going to be a change in the Zoning based on this Application, however this Applicant is reviewed under current Zoning, which Mr. O’Halloran felt that the Applicant had adhered to.
Vote: There were 3 members in favor and 3 members opposed.
Mr. Medenbach requested a roll call vote.
Vote: Chairperson Carney- Abstain Mr. Ricks- Yes
Mr. O’Halloran – Yes Mr. Tapper- No
Mr. Kawalchuck- No Mr. Striano- No
Mr. Gaydos- Yes
Mr. Medenbach questioned why the Chairperson was abstaining?
Chairperson Carney explained that she is participating in the manner that she still leads the meetings, but she abstains from any motion making or voting because she is employed by the consulting firm on the project, Brinnier & Larios, PE. She spoke with the Town Attorney when she became employed by Brinnier & Larios, PE and it was her view that it was up to Chairperson Carney. It wasn’t required to abstain or recuse herself, but the Chairperson wanted to avoid any question of ethics.
Mr. Baum’s Attorney, Mr. Sisti brought up a case that ruled that the Special Use Permit is a permitted use and if the vote is even then it is deemed an approval.
Chairperson Carney noted that she had checked with the Town Attorney and they would check again, but she said that it meant the Application was a denial. The Board would bring this vote to her, though and ask for her determination on it.
Mr. Medenbach requested to hear the reasons from the two other members who voted against the project.
Mr. Striano explained that Mr. Tapper mentioned a lot of good points. He felt that the Town needed a mobile home park or type of affordable housing, but he didn’t feel that this was it. He understood that the plan has been prepared and reviewed by Engineers, but he didn’t feel confident that in five years down the road the system wouldn’t fail. This was a highly sensitive area. All of the sewage would go right into the creek. He felt that even though the Zoning allows for it, there were too many units compacted in that area. He went back and forth on this project many times in many different ways in the past year and a half of review. He had one opinion when it started, another one half way through, and he has another one now. It wasn’t an easy decision. He felt that the project needed to be downsized and it wasn’t done.
Mr. Kawalchuck noted that he wasn’t against the project as a whole, but he was maybe against the Engineering of the project. He didn’t have confidence in the Engineering and studies that he has read, but he is not qualified to elaborate on which parts he did not have confidence in. He believed it was an over use of the land. He wasn’t certain that the intention of the Zoning was to consolidate all of the sites in one area and use the total sum of the property to dictate how many sites there could be.
Mr. Tapper made a motion to deny the Application. Mr. Striano seconded the motion.
Discussion on Motion:
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Board had voted for a Negative Declaration. He believed what he had just heard were concerns for environmental impacts and Engineering. How does any one know that systems on individual lots that do not need to be reviewed by the Planning Board are going to last five years? He has the same questions here, but he can only rely on the professionals qualified and licensed by New York State to do that. The Board went over Part 2 of the EAF and went through the possible impacts point by point and determined as a Board. He believed that two were against it and the rest of the Board voted for the Negative Declaration. He didn’t understand if a member voted for a Negative Declaration, and they felt at that time that the project didn’t warrant a Positive Declaration with any impacts. Mr. O’Halloran based his decision to vote for a Negative Declaration strictly on the consulting engineer from Brinnier & Larios, PE, because they were the ones that that Board referred their hard questions from themselves and the public to. The Applicant’s Engineer satisfied the questions as well as Brinnier & Larios, PE. After that if Mr. O’Halloran looked at the Zoning, and he would like to think that on all Applicant’s that come before the Board that they use the Zoning to make the decision, not whether or not Board members like the project.
Mr. Striano felt that in this particular case there are a lot of other factors besides what is in the Zoning to take into consideration, and this is what he did in his decision making. He doesn’t disagree with what the Zoning Laws say and he knows this is what the Board has as a guideline, which is unfortunate. He believed that this Application fell out of its parameters. Obviously there would be litigation no matter which way the vote goes, it’s almost to the point where the courts should decide.
The Chairperson noted that based on the information obtained from Mary Lou Christiana, Esq., Town Attorney, having a tie vote be a denial, by voting on Mr. Tapper’s motion, if it is also deadlocked—she didn’t know if it was necessary, but if Mr. Tapper felt that it was they could continue.
Mr. Tapper noted that several years ago there was a vote and there wasn’t a majority of people present and it was voted down at the time, but the motion wasn’t made to deny it and at the next meeting when there were more people, it came up for a vote again and it was approved. He wanted to avoid this happening.
Vote: Chairperson Carney- Abstain Mr. Ricks- No
Mr. O’Halloran – No Mr. Tapper- Yes
Mr. Kawalchuck- Yes Mr. Striano- Yes
Mr. Gaydos- No
The Chairperson noted that the Town Attorney would be consulted regarding this decision.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
TLB MANAGEMENT CORP. c/o LEONARD & TERRY BERNARDO- Site Plan Approval for 36,000 sf roller rink, NYS Rote 209, Tax Map #76.2-2-20.200, ‘B’ District
Mr. Bernardo was present along with Engineer, Barry Medenbach, and Architect, Robert Dupont. Also present at the meeting were Planners Nancy Vlahos and David Gilmour from the Chazen Companies on behalf of the Town to give their review of the Application.
At 8:00PM, Mr. De Graw came back to the Board and Mr. Ricks recused himself as he owns contiguous property and therefore Alternate, Mr. O’Halloran would continue to sit on the Board and vote and make motions.
The Chairperson noted that the Board had received revised plans for dated September 10, 2004. She then invited Ms. Vlahos and Mr. Gilmour to the table to discuss their letter of review dated September 21, 2004.
Mr. Bernardo made the Board aware that he and Mr. Medenbach had only received the letter two hours before the meeting, so they haven’t had a chance to discuss responses to the review.
Chairperson Carney noted that she was aware of this and it was okay as the Board just received the letter at the meeting. They would all go over it together.
APPLICATION REVIEW
TLB MANAGEMENT CORP. c/o LEONARD & TERRY BERNARDO: Site Plan Approval for 36,000 sf roller rink
Mr. Medenbach briefly explained revisions that they had made to the plans since the last meeting. Landscaping was added per the discussions held at the previous meeting. They added Spruce Trees to the front of the building alternating with the Bradford Pear Tree. They also put Spruce Trees on the south west side of the building. They landscaped the aisle at the far end of the parking lot putting three (3) shade trees there and just beyond that three (3) Spruce Trees which are low. The Conifer trees on the corner are quite high and the lower branches will be moved, so this would provide some additional screening in this direction as well as the Spruce Trees in the corner.
Mr. Medenbach brought color photos of the existing site and views and a color schematic of the landscaping plans for the Board to view. Mr. Medenbach was hoping to discuss the landscaping and to reach a consensus, so they might come to a conclusion in regards to this area of the project, so they could finalize the landscaping plan. These were pretty much all of the revisions that came out of the last meeting.
In regards to the limited access from Route 209 Mr. Medenbach noted that they have not changed their application to the NYS DOT to reflect what was requested by the Board at the last meeting which was to follow the comments from the Ulster County Planning Board in limiting right had turns in and out to the Route 209 access. Mr. Medenbach was not in attendance at the last meeting and was not aware that the Board was requiring the limited Route 209 Access.
The Chairperson noted that the Board had wanted the Applicant to contact NYS DOT to see what they would require for such a limited access and the Board would accept that.
Mr. Medenbach had prepared a detail of what something like that would look like for the Board to view at the meeting, but he had forgotten it at his office. He explained that it was curbing with an island in the center with the signage that is required. NYS DOT has very specific requirements. Concrete curbed aisle that is basically 16’ wide lanes on the right and left and big curbed concrete triangle in the center with signs all over the place giving directions.
Mr. Bernardo noted that their contention to the limited access is for safety reasons in terms of snow piling up on it, people not using it correctly getting hung up on it or in the middle of 209. They decided that they could eliminate the Route 209 access and just use Mettacahonts Road as the only access.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that Mr. Bernardo had presented the two entrances and the Board has supported the County decision to limit the direction of ingress and egress. This is the site plan that is being presented, and the Board has said what they are requiring.
The Chairperson questioned Mr. Gilmour if he had looked into the possibility of the Applicant eliminating the Route 209 access and if it would adversely impact traffic on Mettacahonts Road.
Mr. Gilmour explained that in their letter of review, Ms. Vlahos coordinated the portion of environmental review, but they did provide comments on off street parking and loading, traffic circulation, and Stormwater Management. One of their comments under traffic and circulation was for the Applicant to provide a line of site
Road. When Mr. Gilmour and Ms. Vlahos visited the site, the location on Mettacahonts Road, the site distance was not provided on the plan and there is a fair amount of traffic coming down Mettacahonts Road and there is a dip before the large Maple Tree at the western part of the property. This is why he suggested that a line of sight be generated so the Planning Board could make a better decision.
Ms. Vlahos questioned Mr. Gilmour if by deleting the Route 209 entrance, it would adversely affect the traffic on Mettacahonts. She remembered discussing it with Mr. Gilmour and he didn’t believe Mettacahonts Road would have a difficult time facilitating the extra traffic.
Mr. Gilmour suggested taking into consideration access to the site by the fire department or other emergency officials and what their opinion would be.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they didn’t want to create a stacking problem by creating an entrance off of Mettacahonts too close to the Route 209 intersection. He recalled doing a line of site calculation but couldn’t locate the numbers, but they would go to the site and do the calculations over.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if leaving the Route 209 access would just enhance a person’s options, even though it would be a limited access? It’s not like one is being traded for the other. One exists already for Mettacahonts Road, what benefit would it be to remove the Route 209 access and either add additional or just leave the single access on Mettacahonts Road?
Mr. Medenbach noted that they have asked just the opposite question—what would the benefit be to leave the Route 209 access?
Mr. O’Halloran noted that if you were going south on Route 209 you could leave quite easily from the site from the Route 209 access. By taking away this benefit, what would be added by deleting the Route 209 access?
Mr. Medenbach believed that it would limit confusion.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that people make mistakes in traffic all of the time and there are many right in right out accesses that people have to learn how to drive and accept as part of their privilege of using the roads.
Mr. De Graw questioned how many patrons were projected throughout a day?
Mr. Bernardo noted that right now that number is probably somewhere around 65 people. That number is broken up in two or three segments a day. The day segment wouldn’t really be cars—more likely to be school buses.
Mr. De Graw was concerned with the impact to Mettacahonts Road traffic wise.
The Chairperson knew that at the Marbletown Plaza they didn’t allow right turns in, but right turns out—she has never really seen anyone make a mistake with that. Really what needs to happen is to either follow what the Ulster County Planning Board had recommended with restricting the turn, or the Applicant would advise their site plan to only access Mettacahonts Road. This is really a decision of the Applicant.
Mr. Medenbach and Mr. Bernardo were looking to the Board for what they would approve and they would modify their plan accordingly.
Mr. Gaydos believed by eliminating the Route 209 access, they would create havoc at the Mettacahonts- Route 209 intersection. Having the second access would alleviate some of the pressure from Mettacahonts which is already a terrible intersection.
The Board’s majority opinion was still to support the restrictions as suggested by the Ulster County Planning Board with right in and right out turns on Route 209.
Mr. Medenbach wanted to thank Chazen for faxing their letter of review to him so that he had it at least a little in advance of the meeting, but he admitted that he was surprised that the Board hired a consultant to look at Mr. Bernardo’s Application. He and Mr. Bernardo were unaware that this was happening. He thought it was a good move by the Board to hire a consultant to work with them on the plans, but he was really surprised that this project was picked to be a test case for the new consultant.
The Chairperson noted that Mr. Medenbach was at a meeting for a different Application when the Board mentioned that a Planner was being hired and they were just working out the contract details, so Mr. Medenbach was aware that the Board would be working with one in the near future. Basically on this project they are really looking for their consultation when the Board begins the process for the Environmental Assessment Form.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that fees are not in place yet, so the Applicant is not responsible for any costs on this Application.
At this time Mr. Gilmour and Ms. Vlahos went through their letter of review dated September 21, 2004 touching on the key points.
Mr. Gilmour recommended that the Planning Board make a determination of significance if they haven’t already done so.
Chairperson Carney noted that at this point the Board has typed the project and has requested to be Lead Agency and that is as far as they have gotten regarding SEQRA.
Mr. Gilmour continued that Part 2 should be submitted for review.
The Board preferred to review Part 2 with the Planner. They have received draft Part 2 from the Applicant in the past and have received a lot of criticism from the public.
Regarding Part 1 of the EAF, Mr. Gilmour went through their items of concern.
Ms. Vlahos noted that they are coming into the project mid stream and if there were any areas of concern highlighted that have already been addressed, to disregard them.
Mr. Gilmour pointed out that the Applicant should provide a note to cite the source used and show how the maximum vehicular trips per hour were calculated. It is generally understood that the geometry of the intersection is acceptable, but a source would be fine.
Ms. Vlahos questioned if the Applicant has reached out to the NYS DEC or the US Fish and Wildlife Service—they have data bases on rare and endangered species.
Mr. Medenbach replied that they haven’t on this project. They didn’t think it was necessary. This site has been 100% occupied by buildings, hotels and a camp there was a lot of disturbance. There was a swimming pool that was filled in on the property that is actually still there. They didn’t think it was necessary, but it is easy enough to do if the Board wants it.
The Board agreed that they would like this to be done by the Applicant.
Mr. Medenbach questioned Chazen’s recommendation that ‘yes’ should be checked for item B.20, that construction noise will likely exceed the local ambient noise levels. He felt that it is just assumed that during any construction there would be construction noise and that question is geared toward the actual end use of the project. They would object to saying that there would be more noise than the ambient level because the whole entire facility would be within side of the building. The only thing outside would be the parking, and obviously they are on a highway where there is traffic noise already. Mr. Medenbach believed that the construction period would be between 6-9 months. They marked it as a year in the EAF and that was to cover any delays that may take place.
The Chairperson noted that the Board may come back to this item later to limit time frame of construction activities during the day as there are residences near by. She didn’t believe there was any thing general in the Zoning Ordinance for construction noise other than for mining.
Mr. Gilmour continued and noted that the Applicant should provide supporting documentation regarding a well pumping test or other supporting data to support the statement that the on-site well pumping capacity is 5 gallons per minute.
Mr. Medenbach stated that there is no well on the property at this time, so they can’t test it. They would have to provide public water for this facility based on the New York State Health requirements and the Ulster County Health Dept. does a pretty rigorous review of that water system. They will require the Applicant to have the well in and to do a pump test and an analysis and to provide any plans for treatment before the facility opens. They don’t see the need to put a well in at this point—it is a very small usage at less than 1,000 gallons a day. It is not a high water user—just water for the rest rooms and the snack bar.
Mr. Medenbach then questioned Chazen’s comments regarding item C.6, that this section should be expanded to list the local land use plans that were reviewed and briefly describe how the project is consistent with their policies. He noted that this is a use that is specifically permitted with Site Plan Approval within the Zoning Ordinance. He didn’t know how he could better support this other than going back to the Town’s Master Plan which he did not find necessary.
Ms. Vlahos noted that is what that portion of the EAF was alluding to. It’s not discussing compliance with Zoning, but asking if the Applicant has looked at the Town’s Master Plan and the County’s Master Plan. It is looking for land use compliance.
Mr. Medenbach’s argument was that they were complying with the Town’s local Zoning Law. They weren’t asking for any variances or waivers, they were complying 100%.
Ms. Vlahos continued that it was more of a compatibility of land using and whether the planning documents out there has specific recommendations for this particular section of the Town.
Mr. Medenbach noted that the Master Plan for this Town was 30 years old, so they didn’t consult it. He wasn’t sure what Chazen was asking him to demonstrate other than to show that he is complying with what is currently permitted.
Ms. Vlahos was asking for the Applicant to demonstrate that there proposed use was consistent with the Town’s Master Plan and the County’s Master Plan even though they comply with the Zoning for the Town.
Moving on, Mr. Gilmour pointed out that the parking stalls didn’t meet the size requirement of 9’ x 20’with a 26’ aisle as depicted in Chapter 140-21E of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Medenbach stated that they have been designing 9’ x 18’ parking spaces with a 24’ aisle for over 20 years. If he had to change it, he would, but this was really a surprise to him. It would require a 24’ expansion of the parking lot.
The Chairperson noted that if inadequate parking spaces have been approved in the past, it has been an over sight.
In regards to C.11.a that the Applicant should provide correspondence with the local police department and fire district to show that they can adequately provide services to support the project, Mr. Bernardo has contacted the State troopers. They wanted the Applicant to let them know when the facility was actually functioning, and then they would comment on it. What basically happens in these situations is that you work with local enforcement to see what activities are going on in the area. Mr. Bernardo is currently attending things like gang conferences and he does this within a 50 mile radius of the site. Ulster County Youth Council has meetings set up where you go in and meet these kids.
Chazen is looking for a letter that would give them a brief description of the project, how many people they would expect to be utilizing the facility, and ask the police and fire departments if they felt that they had adequate staffing and equipment to service the buildings and if they foresaw any unusual problems or concerns associated with this development. They will send back a letter either saying ‘no’, or if they do have concerns they would list them.
Mr. Gilmour suggested in order to enhance pedestrian safety that the Applicant should consider sidewalks either around the building or from the parking areas located on the side. It appears that there are sidewalks along the front of the entrance with landscaping.
The Applicant does not want to put a sidewalk all the way around the building. They don’t want to encourage people to walk around the building. This is a teen-age type of environment and they want to keep the crowds centralized in an accessible visible location. The back of the building is just for service. They are curbing all of the landscaped aisles and they are curbing along the front of the building. He would detail this a little better. They were not going to curb around the perimeter of the parking lot, they were intending to have sheet run off into the drainage system and plus snow removal would be pushed off of the end of the parking lot. This would be achieved with out having curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot. There is a swale that surrounds the parking.
Mr. Gilmour continued with recommending that the corner clearance standard under Section 140-20F in the Zoning Ordinance be considered.
Mr. Medenbach did comply with this presently.
There was discussion about the amount of stop signs in the parking lot. Mr. Medenbach noted that there were stop signs at the entrances and the main corridor across the front of the building. They don’t show them for each of the cross walks. He didn’t believe that they would have that amount of pedestrian traffic where they would need controlled stop signs. A lot of the arrangement is that kids will be dropped off out front after school. The driveway in front of the building is 30’ wide so that there is room for a bus or a car to stop at the sidewalk and still give the ability to maintain two-way traffic. The whole front of the building would be like a drop off pick up area. The whole front of the building would be designated for this.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that the amount of stop signs were adequate for this site.
Mr. De Graw believed that there was a question of stop signs on the site and the legality of who would enforce it if someone doesn’t obey it.
The Chairperson felt that the stop signs were more for safety and directional information.
This is private property, so an officer couldn’t enforce obeying the stop sign, but if someone were to run a stop sign, even if they were on private property, they could be issued a ticket for something to the effect of reckless driving.
Mr. Gilmour continued the discussion on the Chazen review in regards to Stormwater Management. They noted that they have not yet received drainage calculations, nor has engineering review been provided on the Stormwater Management Plan. They also suggested that soil test data be included on the plan for the point at which will be the sanitary waste water system and the Stormwater Management basin. A SPEDES Permit is also required. He also noted that within the Stormwater Management basin, willow trees are in the area. Mr. Gilmour was concerned that one of these trees would be destroyed due to the location of it being in the basin. He suggested removing prior to grading.
Mr. Medenbach believed that willow trees were very hearty and they would prefer to leave it and grade around it, and if it dies, the owner will deal with it.
Mr. Gilmour noted that it would probably be quite tolerant of the stormwater as it is a hydrant species, but another strategy would be to try and protect the root bulb during construction of the basin, trying to promote sensitive use of heavy equipment around the tree.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they had measured the drip lines of the roots and they took up a majority of the basin. They would have to do some work under the drip line.
The Chairperson thought the Board may want to revisit this topic.
Mr. Gilmour noted that they would look further into this with their landscape architects in their office. He understood that there has been discussion between the Applicant and the Board about landscaping along the back property line. He was also aware that the Board and the Applicant have discussed the landscaping plan for the site with approximately 7-10’ in between the sidewalk and the landscaping area in front of the building. Chazen acknowledges the objective to try and provide landscaping screening to try and help with the architectural feel of the building in relation to the site. It is Chazen’s concern that when the species specified may not be appropriate for that space as they mature. It is a tight space. Mr. Gilmour recommended some shrubs such as arborvitae or some species of juniper should be specified to help with the architectural features.
Mr. Dupont noted that they have spoken about this quite a bit and at the last Planning Board meeting it was determined that they wanted to use landscaping to help break up the length and size of the building and that is why they chose the trees that they did. The Spruces that are proposed are slow growth trees. They spoke with a landscaper and they felt that the location would be suitable for both species proposed. He believed a blue spruce could get up to 65’ but they only grew up to about 8-12” per year. The trees can also be pruned to limit their growth as well. They wanted to stay away from arborvitae because deer tend to eat them.
Mr. Bernardo questioned if this review was going to be required for every Site Plan Approval that comes before the Board.
The Chairperson responded that they were still working out the details with Chazen and the Town Board. There were still definite changes that were going to happen to the plan including straightening out the entrances, the
parking areas brought up to Zoning Code. She questioned if Ms. Vlahos would be able to attend a Workshop meeting to go over Part 2 of the EAF.
Ms. Vlahos agreed that would be a good idea.
The Chairperson requested that Part 1 be revised by the Applicant prior to the review of Part 2.
In regards to A.14 on Part 1 of the EAF, Mr. Medenbach didn’t believe that this project has any scenic views that were considered important to the community. Previously the site contained derelict buildings until recently. He believed that Ulster County Planning Board was referring to the size of the building and that the Applicant should consider screening. He didn’t think that they were concerned with the site being a scenic view.
The Chairperson agreed that the site didn’t contain any natural views that would be considered important, but the building itself needed to be considered as a visual impact.
Ms. Vlahos and the Board agreed to leave A.14 as ‘no’.
Mr. Medenbach noted that Chazen had pointed out B.9 of the EAF that he should provide how he calculated how many jobs would be created during construction. The number of jobs could be argued over depending on if a crew did subcontracting. This isn’t a project that is going to be significant to the regional or even the local work force. It is going to be a temporary construction project. He doesn’t believe that this is an important number to the project. This isn’t something that can be projected.
Ms. Vlahos noted that there are multipliers out there. The Urban Land Use Institute has a Development Impact Handbook, where based on the square footage and the area of construction, you can estimate how many construction jobs will be created and how many full time jobs will be created. Having this information is helpful when completing Part 2 of the EAF. She would provide Mr. Medenbach to a means of the resources.
Mr. Medenbach had the same argument for the solid waste created.
Ms. Vlahos would give Mr. Medenbach the resource for that as well.
The Chairperson noted that the October meeting was the 19th. Because the Board re-advertises for Public Hearings, Mr. Medenbach would need to have the revised materials to the Planning Board office no later than October 6, 2004. Part 2 of the EAF could be reviewed at a Workshop meeting on October 26, 2004. For continued application review for the October Meeting, the deadline for submission would be October 13th.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they were going to resubmit the site plan and an amended EAF by the 6th, but if there was some supplemental information for the EAF he would submit it prior to the meeting.
As long as it didn’t substantially impact the site plan, the Chairperson didn’t see a problem with this. If at any time after a Public Hearing is closed, if anything substantially impacts the site plan, the Board can re-open the public hearing.
Mr. Medenbach acknowledged that the Board has been focusing on screening between business and residential zones, but the business zone line is well behind the end of this property. This property abuts the continuing B-1 Zone.
Chairperson Carney read Section 140-20(I) it states that where a lot in a business district or industrial district or where a parcel of land is used for business or industry and it abuts a lot in a residence district there shall be provided along such side or rear lot line in the business or industrial district a wall fence, compact evergreen hedge of shrubs so designated to form a visual screen no less than 6’ high at the time of planting except for landscaped areas in parking areas, a use which is not conducted within a completely enclosed building, shall be screened by at least 6’ high solid masonry wall, chain link fence, covered in evergreen vine or compact evergreen hedge, unless said requirement is waived by the Zoning Board of Appeals after application and hearing.
The Chairperson noted that the lot line doesn’t abut a residence district, so she didn’t feel this would apply.
Mr. De Graw disagreed and suggested getting the advisement of the Town Attorney.
Mr. De Graw then questioned the landscaping of the site as nothing has really been resolved in respect to how it could best influence the appearance of the structure. Chazen also mentioned it in their review. In looking in the Bradford Pears and evergreens proposed for screening, how long before the screening would be effective?
Mr. Dupont wanted to confirm with the Board what they would like to see for a planting height. The Bradford Pear would be at a 2” diameter and would be around 8’ in height.
Mr. Gilmour noted that they might recommend a 3” diameter to start.
Mr. De Graw felt the Board needed to make a decision on whether or not this was adequate to break up the massive scale of the building. For the Applicant’s sake, this is a decision that should be made early on.
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if Mr. De Graw was suggesting something other than planting trees to help the appearance of the building?
Mr. De Graw would prefer to see some type of architectural modification to break up the massive scale of the building.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they were trying to demonstrate that by presenting all of the photographs. There are a lot of existing trees.
The Chairperson agreed that the Board isn’t trying to screen the building from the road as much as they are trying to breaking up the façade of the building. She didn’t believe that should include trees by the road, because that is screening it.
Mr. Medenbach believed that there wouldn’t be much concern of seeing the building as someone was driving down the road because there would be many trees blocking its view. Its not like it is a clear open field. . . there is vegetation there now. That somewhat takes away from the focal point of the building. As far as suggesting cupolas, the contractors don’t want any penetration into the roof as the skating floor is the main part of the business. He wanted some feedback of what the Board would like to see.
The Chairperson noted that the Board has already had the discussion on the roof line and have discussed the screening in length at the last meeting. She knows that Mr. Medenbach was not present at that meeting, but he had sent representatives on his behalf. They have changed the plans in accordance with that discussion and this is what the Applicant is submitting. She was aware that some of the Board members were still not satisfied, but no one on the Board was a landscape architect, the Applicant is the one who has to propose the site plan and the Board will have approve it. She asked that Mr. Medenbach use his best judgment in the trees that they proposed to use. There are comments from Chazen and other Board members, but the Board can not go through a landscape book and pick out trees for the Applicant to plant.
The Board took a consensus on the landscaping.
Mr. Gaydos believed that the landscaping proposed was fine and he didn’t think that there was ever anything that they could do with the roof that would make some people on this Board happy. Trees will only grow so quick. . .
Mr. Striano agreed with Mr. Gaydos.
Mr. Kawalchuck believed that people put businesses on Route 209 in the business district because they wanted people to see them. That is the reasoning for not hiding it in the woods. Just the new building going in without any screening would look a lot better than a lot of existing buildings that are visible on Route 209 now. Ultimately the Applicant makes it look as good as they think it should look and whether he is successful or not will dictate whether people patronize the business or not. To him, it was fine the way it was presented.
Mr. De Graw didn’t want to hide the building, but for an effective option to break up the massive scale of the building.
Mr. Medenbach’s response to that was that a person would have to look through all of the trees that were already on the property to see the full length of the building.
Mr. Tapper felt the landscaping was fine. He didn’t believe there would be any deer as Mr. Dupont stated that would eat what ever they were going to plant. As far as hiding the building, this is a destination. People that are
going to be going there are going to know it is there and will be looking for it. There will be a sign on the road, so he doesn’t’ believe it has to be so visual from Route 209.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Town doesn’t have architectural standards for buildings, so he thought it would be unfair to this Applicant to require architectural standards. The Board has encouraged the Applicant to choose a color that would fit into the area, they have been unsuccessful with trying to get cupolas on the roof, so to Mr. O’Halloran, he would trade those things for an aggressive landscaping plan, so that it would be a well manicured beautiful site that the Town would be proud to look at and see from Route 209.
The Chairperson was in agreement that this discussion was held at the last meeting and she made her opinion clear at that time. The Board has spent a lot of time on this Application and needs to move on as the Agenda is quite full, yet.
Ms. Vlahos questioned if the Applicant had considered changing the color or color scheme of the building?
Mr. Dupont noted that they had researched this and have visited other rinks that have tried different color schemes and they look clownish. This is the best color for the building.
PUBLIC HEARING
LARAINE CALIRI- subdivision/ lot line adjustment, Kirby Lane Private Road off of Kyserike Road, High Falls, Tax Map #77.2-2-9.111, R-1 District
Mr. Ricks came back to the Board at 9:40PM, so there was a full Board which meant that Mr. O’Halloran would not be able to make any motions or participate in any votes.
The Chairperson called Ms. Caliri forward for her public hearing.
Ms. Caliri noted that this was the revised map showing the lot line adjustment between herself and Mr. Ferrari.
The Chairperson noted that the map was still rather confusing, it didn’t depict a clear picture of the proposed boundary line adjustment. The surveyor needed to depict clearly that Mr. Ferrari owned two (2) separate pieces
and how they were to be joined with the proposed parcel line adjustments.
The Board agreed that the map wasn’t self explanatory and would confuse anyone in the future that would look at this.
The hearing was opened to the public and there were no comments.
Mr. Ricks motioned to type the Application as an Unlisted Action Under SEQRA. Mr. De Graw seconded the motion. No discussion
Vote:
Chairperson Carney- Yes Mr. Ricks- Yes Mr. Tapper- Yes Mr. De Graw- Yes
Mr. Kawalchuck- Yes Mr. Striano- Yes
Mr. Gaydos- Yes
Mr. Ricks motioned for the Town of Rochester to be Lead Agency. Mr. De Graw seconded the motion. No discussion. Vote:
Chairperson Carney- Yes Mr. Ricks- Yes Mr. Tapper- Yes Mr. De Graw- Yes
Mr. Kawalchuck- Yes Mr. Striano- Yes
Mr. Gaydos- Yes
Involved agencies included the Ulster County Health Dept., the Town’s Historic Preservation Commission, and the Ulster County Highway Dept.. These agencies would be contacted.
Mr. De Graw motioned to continue the Public Hearing because of the inadequacy of the plan and to wait for responses from the involved agencies. Chairperson Carney seconded the motion. All in favor, no discussion.
The Chairperson explained that the surveyor needed to show what lots were being connected to what lots. Somebody looking at this map from the public will not have anyone there to answer questions. It needs to be very obvious what is being proposed. What the total acreages will be on the final lots, a location map should be shown, the right to farm notation was missing. There is a whole book and list of subdivision requirements. She suggested for the Applicant to check with her surveyor to see if he has the Town’s Subdivision Regulations. He needs to follow the guide and show all that is listed on the map. Because lot 2 is a new building lot being proposed, it needs to show the proposed improvement location on the map. If the topo is over 2% contours would need to be shown. Health Dept. approval will also be required before final approval for lot 2 to show that it will be a buildable lot.
Mr. Tapper left the meeting at 10:00PM, therefore Mr. O’Halloran became a full member, able to make motions and vote.
The Chairperson noted that there were some inconsistencies with the EAF. A.#2 needs to be consistent throughout. The area will be developed whether or not Ms. Caliri was planning to develop it herself or sell it off as a vacant lot. There was a seasonal stream that is listed by Ms. Caliri. She might want to take that off as it is said to be run off, not a stream. #13 on page 4 should be checked yes. #23 on page 4 should be filled in. Subdivision Approval should be checked on sheet 5 under C.1.
The Chairperson noted that Ms. Caliri’s public hearing would be left open until the Board heard back from the involved agencies and received a complete map. If Ms. Caliri wanted to get on the schedule for a public hearing in October, she would need to have the changes to the Planning Board by October 6. October 13th would be the deadline to get on the Agenda for continued application review.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
RANDY HORNBECK- subdivision approval for 2 lot subdivision, Old Kings Highway, Tax Map# 69.4-2-1.311, R-1 District
Mr. Hornbeck was present on behalf of his Application. He explained that the Road Maintenance Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney, and the Town Board will sign it at their next regular meeting.
The Chairperson noted that the Board has received comments from the NYS DEC and the wetlands approval is now good for another 7 years. The Board has correspondence from Mrs. Cross at the Historic Commission saying that he is good to go. There was confusion with the Office of Parks & Recreation, but they are not requiring any additional information.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA, seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion.
Vote:
Chairperson Carney- Yes Mr. Ricks- Yes Mr. O’Halloran- Yes Mr. De Graw- Yes
Mr. Kawalchuck- Yes Mr. Striano- Yes
Mr. Gaydos- Yes
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for Conditional Final Approval, pending the signing of the Road Maintenance Agreement by the Town Board. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. No discussion.
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to give the Chairperson authorization to sign the maps after the Road Maintenance Agreement is signed by the Town Board. Mr. Striano seconded the motion. All in favor, no discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING
OPEN SPACE CONSERVANCY- c/o Medenbach & Eggers, subdivision approval for lot line adjustment, Rock Hill Road, Tax Map # 77.4-1-18.1, ‘A’ Zone
At 10:15PM, the Chairperson explained that this Application had already had a public hearing on August 17, 2004 and it was closed, but the Planning Board office has been told that the wrong bounding owners were notified and the Town Attorney suggested that the Board contact the correct owners, re-open the public hearing and can close it and approve it at the same meeting.
She explained briefly that Richard Lapp is conveying +/-1.150 acres to the lands of the Open Space Conservancy to give them a revised lot area of +/- 10.310 acres. The land to be conveyed is a rock outcropping and will be used for conservation.
There was no one from the public to comment on this Application.
At 10:20PM, Mr. Ricks motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. All members in favor, no discussion.
Mr. De Graw motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Mr. O’Halloran seconded the motion.
No discussion.
Vote:
Chairperson Carney- Yes Mr. Ricks- Yes Mr. O’Halloran- Yes Mr. De Graw- Yes
Mr. Kawalchuck- Yes Mr. Striano- Yes
Mr. Gaydos- Yes
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for Final Approval, seconded by Mr. Gaydos. All members in favor, no discussion.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
GENE CANNIZZARO- Site Plan Approval for auto repair & sales, Route 209, Accord, Tax Map # 69.3- 3-35.1, ‘B’ Zone
Mr. Cannizzaro was present along with his Engineer, Barry Medenbach to discuss his Application.
Mr. Medenbach explained that the NYS DOT has asked for some minor revisions which they have submitted, and they have approval from the Ulster County Health Dept.
The Board reviewed the revisions to the plan that they requested at the last meeting noting that the Applicant has shown: the dumpster w/in a fenced in area, landscaping, drainage in parking lot with final contours, and the deliver bay. He also submitted a cut sheet for lighting detail.
Mr. Cannizzaro noted that he would not be getting more than one (1) delivery per day.
Mr. Ricks motioned for approval based on the following conditions:
1. No construction prior to all approvals, including NYS DOT.
2. All landscaping is to be planted and in place prior to the receipt of a certificate of occupancy/ compliance on the building.
3. All improvements are to be installed per the site plan or bonded prior to the receipt of a
certificate of occupancy/compliance on the building.
Mr. O’Halloran seconded the motion all members in favor, no discussion.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
RUSSEL OLIVER- Oliver Pipe Organ Company, private road-Old Mine Road, off of Samsonville Road, Site Plan Approval for pipe organ repair, Tax Map #76.10-1-9.1, ‘I’ Zone
At 10:35, Mr. O’Halloran recused himself as he was the owner of the property being applied for.
Mr. Oliver was present and noted that he had submitted a revised site plan to show the improvements requested by the Board at the last meeting which were: to show lighting, a loading dock, & a light over the loading dock.
The The Board members reviewed the revised map.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration, seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: Chairperson Carney- Yes Mr. Ricks- Yes Mr. De Graw- Yes Mr. Striano- Yes
Mr. Kawalchuck- Yes
Mr. Gaydos- Yes
Mr. Ricks motioned for final approval with the condition of no outside storage. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. All members in favor, no discussion.
LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN- c/o Medenbach & Eggers, subdivision approval for lot line adjustment, Stony Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3-26.1, R-1 & ‘A’ Zone
At 10:40PM, Mr. O’Halloran came back to the Board.
Mr. Medenbach was present on behalf of the Application.
The Chairperson noted that this Applicant is acquiring +/-40.044 acres from neighbor, Theodore Beck to give Mr. Friedman a total of +/-165.242 acres. She questioned if the Board would be conditioning the revised parcel to become a part of the already existing conservation easement in place?
Mr. Medenbach didn’t believe that he needed to. The conservation easement runs with the land and he is only making it bigger.
The Board discussed whether or not there would need to be a Road Maintenance Agreement.
Mr. Medenbach explained that this is a very old right-of-way and he has a right-of-way and all he is doing is adding a piece to it. If he were to split it in the future it would need to have a Road Maintenance Agreement. There is no intent to split it. Mr. Friedman is going to put a private estate on the property.
Mr. Gaydos recalled that Mr. Friedman had mentioned that he wouldn’t mind making it a part of the conservancy, but the Board wouldn’t push the point.
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration, seconded by Mr. De Graw. No discussion.
Vote: Chairperson Carney- Yes Mr. Ricks- Yes Mr. De Graw- Yes Mr. Striano- Yes
Mr. Kawalchuck- Yes Mr. O’Halloran – Yes
Mr. Gaydos- Yes
Mr. Gaydos motioned for Final Approval for the lot line adjustment. Mr. Kawalchuck seconded the motion. All members in favor.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WAIVER REQUEST
STEPHEN & SHERI SIEGEL- Request to waive 50’ right-of-way requirement for a 25’ existing right-of- way for a 4 lot subdivision, Schroon Hill Road & Indian Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #60.3-1-27.3, ‘A’ Zone
The Chairperson read letter dated August 11, 2004 from the Applicant asking for the waiver from the 50’ right-of-way to create 4 lots intended for their children.
The Board noted that they had just had a similar request from Rosalie Sendalbach also on Indian road and they had denied it due to the fact that it is a substandard right-of-way and a poorly maintained road.
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to deny the request based on the Board not wanting to stray from the Subdivision Regulations. Seconded by Mr. Striano. All members present in favor, no discussion.
Mr. Gaydos noted that they would need to talk to their neighbors to get a 50’ right-of-way and then they could come back for subdivision approval.
DISCUSSION
PLANNER
Mr. Ricks questioned if the Board was going to have the Planner on each application or on certain size projects?
The Chairperson noted that this is part of what they were going to discuss. Right now they were going to try and involve the planner on their bigger projects and on all Special Use Permits and subdivisions.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Town Board has stated that the Planner will be implemented on Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit applications. No subdivisions at this time.
Mr. Gaydos confirmed that a little guy who wanted to do a business on Route 209 would have to be reviewed by the Planner, but a subdivision wouldn’t.
Mr. Ricks could see a small project turning into a bigger deal than what it needed to be.
Many Board members agreed.
The Chairperson felt that it would turn out to be on an as needed basis.
Mr. O’Halloran felt that if one person was going to have to have Planner review, the next person should. He felt that the size of a project shouldn’t dictate the review process. Every one should have the exact same standard. The difference would be that the fee schedule would reflect the size of the project. That is where the consideration would be taken.
TERMS OF OFFICE
The Chairperson wanted to let everyone know Mr. O’Halloran and the Chairperson’s terms will be up in November. They would both like to remain on the Board and they would send letters to the Town Board to make them aware of it, however, just incase she was not reappointed, the Board should look into who they would like to see as the next Chairperson and make a recommendation to the Town Board. She would like to stay on the Board, but she really would like to step down as Chairperson.
Mr. Gaydos reminded that Board that the Planning Board is the body that dictates who will be the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
She still urged the Board to have a plan.
The Board agreed to recommend Mr. O’Halloran and Mrs. Carney back onto the Board and after the appointments, then they will discuss the positions.
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Town Board would like to have the Planning Board’s recommendation for fees. He recalled that they weren’t discussing subdivision at this point.
Mr. Gaydos attended the meeting with Chazen and the Town Board and he believed that it would be at the Planning Board’s discretion on a case by case basis for larger projects.
Mr. Ricks recalled the same thing.
The Chairperson felt that the Board needed to work it out with the Planner as to what the their needs really are. Maybe there should be thresholds? But they should be involved on all Special Use Permits.
Mr. De Graw agreed with having them involved with all Special Use Permits. He also felt that Chazen should attend a few meetings and see how the Board operates and help judge where they are needed.
The Chairperson agreed, maybe there were certain aspects like SEQRA Review that they could help out in.
Mr. Gilmour noted that it could also be in a benefit of talking with applicants at an early stage.
The Board agreed to recommend to the Town Board that the Application Fees for Special Use Permits and Site Plan Approvals be increased to $150.00 and $ .10 per square foot.
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mr. Striano motioned to accept the minutes of July 27, 2004 and August 17, 2004. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. 6 members in favor, 1 abstain. No discussion.
Mr. De Graw motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by the Chairperson. All in favor, no discussion.
As there was no further business to discuss at 11:00PM the Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange
Secretary