Planning Board Minutes 11/16/04

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by the Vice Chairman, Shane Ricks.

 

PRESENT:        
David O’Halloran, Alternate, Frank Striano, Sr, Shane Ricks, Vice Chair, Robert Gaydos, Melvyn Tapper, William De Graw

 

ABSENT:         Nadine Carney, Chairperson, Anthony Kawalchuck  

 

Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Nancy Vlahos, from The Chazen Companies.
        
Pledge to the Flag.

 

Because there was not a full Board at this meeting, Alternate Mr. O’Halloran sat as a regular member.
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW TLB MANANGEMENT 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
        
Because Chairperson Carney was absent, Mr. Ricks was acting Chair for this meeting. He recused                  himself as he has done with past review of this application because he owns contiguous                                  property to the project site. He also noted that the next item on the agenda was for a self storage facility            one parcel over from the proposed skating rink. Mr. Ricks also owned a self storage facility, so he would               also recuse from that application as well. Mr. Tapper stepped in as the Chairman for both applications.

 

Mr. Bernardo was present along with his representative, Barry Medenbach, PE to further discuss his application.

 

Mr. Tapper noted that the Board had had a Workshop meeting on November 8, 2004 to review Part 2 of the EAF to identify if there were possibly any large impacts. There was one item that the Board cited as a Potentially Large Impact. This was if the proposed action would impact aesthetic resources and the Board believed it would because it would locate a 2-story, 36,000sf structure and 71,660 sf of pavement on a currently vacant lot.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that they submitted a Visual EAF Addendum.

 

Mr. Tapper noted that there was a question if the site was near any historic sites and they received letter dated November 16, 2004 from Alice Cross, the Chairperson for the Town’s Historic Commission. She stated a brief history of the property, and stated that there is no impact or restrictions to their plans to develop the site. There is only a State Educational Historical Marker that the Bernardo’s were aware needed to remain on the site.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that there weren’t too many facilities of significance in close proximity to the site. The first one that they came to was the cemetery behind the Rochester Reformed Church that was on the National Register of Historic Places. There were nearby state, local, and county roads. They continued to review the Visual EAF Addendum and concluded that there weren’t any sensitive visual intercepts within the area of the roller rink. Although the building is large, it really isn’t out of character with other buildings in the area. It is a pre-engineered steel building. The architect used colors that were similar to barn type colors. They have spent quite a bit of time going over screening and landscaping with the Board specifically to mitigate the size of the building. There was existing vegetation to remain and vegetation that will be planted to break up the view of the building. He reminded the Board that this Town does not have architectural standards for review. Another issue brought up at the Workshop meeting was how the building would be heated and Mr. Medenbach has since found out that the applicant would be using propane. Propane is not regulated by the DEC. The engineering of the building will really determine the tank size.

 

Ms. Vlahos noted that #11 of Part 2 of the EAF was identified by the Board as a Large Impact.

 

Mr. De Graw questioned at the Workshop meeting if Mr. Bernardo would be able to reduce the wall height of the building to mitigate the aesthetic impact?

 

Mr. Bernardo noted that it was impossible to do so in regards to safety. The building has been sized at the height it has due to the skate board park and the space required for the ramps and jumps.

 

Mr. De Graw was still uncomfortable with the size of the building being so close to 209, a corridor that is being used more and more for tourism.

 

Mr. Medenbach believed this would be positive for tourism. This rink was going to bring people to the area.

 

Mr. O’Halloran questioned # 11 of Part 2 of the EAF. He noted that the Board identified one thing as a Potentially Large Impact. He himself voted in favor of making it a large impact. He questioned the Board members, has the applicant mitigated this impact through his submission at this point? Its now up to the Board decide if he did or didn’t, if it hasn’t there would be a Positive Declaration.

 

Ms. Vlahos noted that the Board wouldn’t necessarily need to go straight to a Positive Declaration. They could fill out a Part 3 to determine if they mitigated the problem yet or not.

 

Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Board does not have architectural standards. From day 1 Mr. O’Halloran and other Board members have encouraged additional landscaping, changing the landscaping plan to be more of a T/ Rochester year round vegetation. On the 120’ wall where there was no landscaping the Board encouraged the applicant to continue the landscaping  that was in the front of the building, they are now adding in a hedge row to break up the entrances. With all of these factors, Mr. O’Halloran believed that the applicant has mitigated the Potentially Large Impact identified in #11 now to a Small to Moderate based on the EAF.

 

Mr. Striano and Mr. Gaydos both agreed.

 

Mr. De Graw stated that last week the Board had flagged this property as a Potentially Large Impact, nothing has come in to change that.

 

Mr. O’Halloran  noted that the applicant staked the building site out on the property as the Board requested. When he went out to the site to look at it and by looking at the storage sheds across the street (which give similar length) and by looking at the apartment house across 209 (which gives similar height), this is one of the ways he was able to imagine the building and the landscaping in place and come to the conclusion that it has been minimized from Large to Small to Moderate Impact.

 

Mr. Medenbach explained to Mr. De Graw how they cooperated with the Board and came to an agreement on the landscaping. The NYS DOT has actually requested that some of the proposed landscaping be taken out for site line purposes along Route 209.

 

Mr. O’Halloran  noted that the Board could condition the size of the trees proposed for the front of the building.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that they were proposing a 15’ tree for the Honey Locusts as well as the Bradford Pear Trees. The Colorado Spruces are going in at 8’ in height.

 

Ms. Vlahos suggested to the Board if they agree that #11 of Part 2 of the EAF has been mitigated and is now Small to Moderate to change this on the EAF to reflect their decision. If this was done, the Board wouldn’t need to fill out Part 3 of the EAF.

 

Mr. Medenbach pointed out that the Planner, Ms. Vlahos had even identified #11 as Small to Moderate.

 

Mr. Tapper agreed that he believed that with all of the factors mentioned by Mr. O’Halloran that this item has been mitigated. At first he definitely thought that this size building would create a huge impact, but the applicant has shown enough and submitted enough including the Visual EAF Addendum to show that this wouldn’t be the case.

 

Mr. Gaydos motioned to reduce # 11 on Part 2 of the EAF to a Small to Moderate Impact, seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.

 

Vote:
Mr. Tapper – Yes                        
Mr. Gaydos – Yes
Mr. De Graw – No                        
Mr. Striano – Yes
Mr. O’Halloran -Yes

 

Mr. O’Halloran made the motion that based on Part 2 of the EAF being all Impacts are Small to Moderate and the one impact identified by the Board as Potentially Large, has been mitigated that this application by TLB Management for 36,000 sf roller rink have a Negative Declaration. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. No discussion.

 

Vote:
Mr. Tapper – Yes                        
Mr. Gaydos – Yes
Mr. De Graw – Yes                       
Mr. Striano – Yes
Mr. O’Halloran -Yes

 

In regards to the request by the Board to super impose the building onto an actual photograph of the site and give different views, Mr. Medenbach couldn’t have this done. He felt it would take over a month to have an architect even look at it.

 

Mr. O’Halloran  knew from looking at the site he would like to focus on conditions of the landscaping heights.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that the heights were displayed on the map. The Honey Locusts would be between 12 and 15’ at planting, the Bradford Pears would also be at 12-15’ in height at planting. The Colorado Blue Spruce would go in at 8-10’ in height.

 

As there was still concern with the maximum occupancy of the building, Mr. Bernardo assured the Board that the Building Dept. would calculate that number when they received their building permit.

 

Ms. Vlahos suggested making it a condition for the applicant to comply with the NYS Building Code, which would cover the maximum occupancy.

 

Mr. O’Halloran motioned for Conditional Preliminary Approval with the following conditions:
Applicant Shall:

 

1. Comply with Ulster County Health Dept. for water and sewage and obtain necessary permits
2. Comply with NYS DOT for Route 209 entrance and obtain necessary permits
3.  Comply with NYS DEC for Storm Water and SPEDES Permit
4.  Install landscaping or bonding of such shall be in place prior to obtaining Certificate of Compliance   
     from the Building Dept.
5.  Comply with Plans prepared by Medenbach & Eggers dated 10/1/04

 

Motion seconded by Mr. Gaydos. 4 Members in favor, 1 opposed.

 

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION AMPLE SELF STORAGE–        
c/o Todd Bivona, Special Use Permit for 77,100sf of storage sheds with 1,375 sf office, Route 209, Tax Map #76.2-2-13.22, ‘B’ District

 

Mr. Bivona was present on behalf of his application along with representative, Barry Medenbach, PE.

 

Mr. Medenbach explained that this site was on the other side of the roller rink property on Route 209 and across the street from CJ’s Automotive.

 

Mr. Bivona presented computer generated drawings to the Board of what he wanted his storage sheds to look like. They would be steel buildings with a mild pitch and metal roofs.

 

Mr. O’Halloran  questioned if the applicant had done any market analysis research in the area as our Town has quite a bit of self storage sheds already?

 

Mr. Medenbach explained that this would be a different type of self storage facility and then read Mr. Bivona’s letter of intent into the record. There would be retail space for selling shipping and moving items, there will be climate control units for moisture sensitive items, security gates for controlled 7 day access with fencing and security cameras. There will be storage area for RV and Boat storage, there will be a UPS shipping and receiving outlet as well as Post Office Box service for the tenants there. The hours of operation will be from 7am-8pm with a computer controlled access system. Each customer would have a unique access code and some customers may be permitted extended hour access. Office hours would be from 8am-5pm. The buildings would be put up in phases starting with the ones that would front on Rote 209 and working back. There would be a single access onto Route 209. There was also a 50’ right-of-way that accessed a lot in the back. On one side of the property there is a home occupied glass business and on the other side there was a house with a trailer in back of it.

 

The Board was trying to grasp how large 71,000sf of storage buildings were. From the audience, Mr. Ricks explained that his storage facility was 2,500 sf with 5 buildings.

 

Mr. Striano questioned if these buildings covered more than 50% of the lot.

 

Mr. Medenbach responded that they only covered 31% of the lot.

 

Mr. O’Halloran  questioned if the applicant would pay for independent review by the Planner? This is an application that would definitely need to be reviewed. The Town doesn’t have the fee schedule for the Planner set up yet. The Board can ask for it and if the applicant refuses the Board could get the planner review through the SEQRA process. This is a very large project that they would want to see reviewed by the planner.

 

The applicant wasn’t prepared to answer the Board. He would think about it and get back to them.

 

Ms. Vlahos stated that they could provide an estimate after they review the project a little further. She would let the Planning Board know and the Secretary could forward it to the Applicant and they could then make up their mind with what they wanted to do with that.

 

Mr. Medenbach explained that they are going to do their drainage calculations as if it’s all impervious. They to
build a treatment facility out front where all of the drainage is coming. It naturally slopes down and they will                        have a collection system. They will assume that it is all paved, if the applicant doesn’t want to pave it all                   immediately. .. . initially the front entrance will be paved.
                
Mr. O’Halloran questioned if people used these facilities to change oil in their cars.
                
Mr. Bivona noted that this wouldn’t be permitted, it was strictly for storage.

 

Mr. De Graw noted that initially there would be outdoor storage of RV’s and boats—would the applicant be                        screening this?

 

Mr. O’Halloran  read Zoning 140-20 General Provisions to show that screening would be required.

 

Mr. Medenbach argued that there would be no building openings facing the property lines. The middle                             buildings would have doors on both sides. There would be two climate controlled buildings which would have interior corridors.

 

Mr. Tapper felt that this was a maximum use of this piece of property. He wanted to let the applicant know from the             start that he was in favor of seeing an alternate plan with less maximum usage of the property.

 

Mr. Medenbach appreciated Mr. Tapper being so up front early on in the process, but the Town’s Zoning allows            for 50% building coverage and this project is only 31% coverage.

 

Mr. O’Halloran was concerned that the applicant was proposing this project to be built in phases, but with no                   time line for what phases will be built. He questioned what the first phase was.

 

Mr. Medenbach noted that they were applying for the whole project now, because from an environmental                    standpoint, the Board needed to review everything that is proposed to be built.

 

Mr. Striano questioned if the Board could impose a time line as part of their conditions of approval. If they gave                       the applicant so many years per phase and the applicant didn’t build within the time constraints, could his                     approval at that time become null and void and he would have to come in to re-apply for the project?

 

Ms. Vlahos would look further into this, but she believed it was within the Board’s ability to impose such a                    condition.

 

Mr. Bivona explained that he was involved with a similar facility in New Jersey with a friend, but this was his first facility. He noted that they aren’t showing any free standing signs, they will be on the building. There will be a few free standing light fixtures around the parking lot, the other building lights would be shielded and on the buildings. There is no detail yet for the fencing, but it would be black aluminum and decorative in front and the sides would be chain linked. There wouldn’t be bathrooms for public use, only for employees.

 

Mr. O’Halloran noted that the site plan would need to be as accurate as possible before the Board would                                 schedule a public hearing. He would like to see this project screened from neighboring residences.

 

Mr. De Graw motioned for the Town of Rochester Planning Board to be Lead Agency, seconded by Mr.O’Halloran.

 

Vote:
Mr. Tapper – Yes                        
Mr. Gaydos – Yes
Mr. De Graw – Yes                       
Mr. Striano – Yes
Mr. O’Halloran -Yes

 

Mr. De Graw motioned for this project to be typed as an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Mr. Striano seconded the motion.

 

Vote:
Mr. Tapper – Yes                        
Mr. Gaydos – Yes
Mr. De Graw – Yes                       
Mr. Striano – Yes
Mr. O’Halloran -Yes

 

The Board determined involved agencies to be contacted as the Ulster County Planning Board, NYS DOT, Ulster County Health Dept., Historic Preservation Commission, and the NYS DEC.

 

This application was to be sent to the County Planning Board for their comments and the Board would discuss them at the next meeting.

 

CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW 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 rejoined the Board at 8:40PM. He explained that the Public Hearing for this project was closed at the last meeting, Ms. Caliri was instructed to get the appropriate changes made to her map as marked on the actual map by Chairperson Carney. Since that time the Board has received revised maps and also a letter from the County Highway Dept. dated November 2, 2004. Mr. Ricks read the letter into record. The County inspected the site and noted that the site distance to the entrance for Kirby Lane was not adequate and needed to be improved to their standards prior to getting subdivision approval.

 

Ms. Caliri stated that she would try and restructure the entrance to Kirby Lane and have the County inspect it.

 

The Board reviewed the map and agreed that there was a discrepancy with the way the 50’ right-of-way was displayed by the surveyor. It didn’t match up after Mr. Ferari’s last lot, and before lot 2—this would need to be revised, there would need to be an accepted Road Maintenance Agreement reviewed by the Town Attorney, the Ulster County Highway comments would need to be satisfied, and Ms. Caliri would need Health Dept. approval for Lot 2.

 

OPEN DEVELOPMENT
KATHERINE MAY & MARJORIE KAHN:  
private road, Deer Haven Road off of Bakertown Road, Tax Map# 68.2-2-39.100, ‘A’ District

 

Ms. Kahn was present on behalf of her application. She explained that she had received the checklist for Open Development from the Secretary and as far as she knew she had everything that she needed.

 

The Secretary stated that Ms. Kahn had received a letter dated November 4, 2004 from Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintendent stating that Deer Haven Road was in compliance for Open Development. The Town Attorney had reviewed her Road Maintenance Agreement and found it to be acceptable. Ms. Kahn also had confirmation from the Accord Fire District that Deer Haven Road was adequate for emergency vehicles.

 

The Board reviewed the site plan and material.

 

Mr. O’Halloran motioned for a positive referral to the Town Board to grant Open Development. They recommended that the Lot not be able to be subdivided and that the applicant provides permission for whoever lives past her property to utilize the road as it crosses over her property. Mr. Striano seconded the motion. All members present in favor, no discussion.

 

NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
RV ASSOCIATES:
Special Use Permit for 2 additional buildings to existing self storage facility, Mettacahonts Road, 76.2-5-3.110, ‘B’ District

 

At 9:10 Mr. Ricks abstained as this was his application. Mr. Tapper took over as acting Chairman again.

 

Mr. Ricks explained that he needed to expand his existing self storage facility by two buildings. The buildings would not be able to be seen from Route 209, they would be placed behind the existing storage units. Per the Code Enforcement Office and the Assessor’s Office there business district in this area extends 1,000’ back from Route 209. He passed photographs to the Board members and explained their individual vantage points. He continued that he would bring in gravel and build up the area and make it level before placing the two buildings. Originally the Ulster County Planning Board didn’t like the long straight look of the buildings and required that trees be planted every 75’. He complies with the currently approved plans. During the summer the storage units become close to 90% full and that is why he is applying for this expansion. He doesn’t have a need for climate controlled storage units as there are no requests for such. His storage units are neat and clean. . . there is no septic, no noise created and no traffic problems. The lights he has are on a motion detector. He isn’t proposing any new signage either. With the new storage units, his total square footage after adding these two buildings would be 3,400sf.

 

Mr. Tapper motioned for the Town of Rochester Planning Board to be Lead Agency in respect to this Application. Mr. De Graw seconded the motion.

 

Mr. De Graw motioned to type the Action as Unlisted under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran.

 

Vote:
Mr. Tapper – Yes                        
Mr. Gaydos – Yes
Mr. De Graw – Yes                       
Mr. Striano – Yes
Mr. O’Halloran -Yes

 

The Board determined involved agencies to be contacted as the Ulster County Planning Board and the Town’s Historic Preservation Commission.

 

Mr. O’Halloran motioned to schedule the public hearing for December 21, 2004, seconded by Mr. De Graw. All members present in favor. No discussion.

 

OTHER MATTERS

 

Mr. Ricks rejoined the Board at 9:25PM.

 

DISCUSSION- Town Board Advisory Request- to amend Chapter 140 of the Zoning Ordinance

 

Mr. Ricks noted that many Planning Board Members had attended the Town Board meeting in which the Town Board discussed the Planner. The Planning Board had recommended certain thresholds for Planner Review which really focused on large projects and projects that the Planning Board felt needed technical review. Since that time, the Town Board voted to have the Planner review all applications that come before the Planning Board.

 

Ms. Vlahos noted that this Advisory Request to amend Chapter 140 of the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in the Town of Wawarsing. This Law would set up the mechanism to charge applicants Escrow Fees for professionals. The Town Board or whoever was designated to handle this would set up an escrow account for funds supplied by the applicant for technical review. Any money not used in the review process would be kept track of and returned to the applicant.

 

Liaison to the Planning Board and Town Board Councilman, Mr. Hornbeck was present at the meeting. Mr. Ricks asked for his opinion on this law and Mr. Hornbeck stated that he felt this law was giving Chazen too much control.

 

Ms. Vlahos stated that this would be a rolling account with an initial deposit from the applicant that would get replenished throughout the review process. There wouldn’t be a cap on how much money would be requested of the applicant and this was to protect the Town. If there was a monetary cap and technical review was more extensive than anticipated, the Town would be liable for the remainder of the cost for the rest of the review process. This is not related to the revised fee schedule recommended by the Planning Board—that is only to cover administrative costs—it can not be used for Planner fees.

 

DISCUSSION: (cont’d)- Town Board Advisory Request- to amend Chapter 140 of the Zoning Ordinance

 

The Board was surprised to hear that none of the money from the application fee will go toward Planner costs. This was the main reason they had added a square foot fee at .10 cents per sf. They felt this amount plus the fee for the escrow account was unnecessary hardship for the applicant.

 

Mr. O’Halloran felt that he was unable to give a recommendation without the full understanding of the escrow fees compared to the application fees.

 

Mr. Striano agreed. He felt if this were the case it would be over kill to charge the applicant for the square foot fee and the escrow.

 

Mr. O’Halloran  motioned for an unfavorable recommendation for the law before them to amend Chapter 140 of the Zoning Ordinance until which time it is clearly understood the separation between the fee structures of the  escrow fees and application fees. This would cause the applicant undue hardship having to pay for a per square foot fee and an escrow account. Seconded by Mr. Striano. 4 members in favor, 1 opposed.

 

2005 REAPPOINTMENTS
Mr. Ricks explained that Ms. Carney and Mr. O’Halloran’s appointments as Board Members were expiring in December of this year.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to recommend to the Town Board to reappoint Nadine Carney to the Planning Board for another term, seconded by Mr. Tapper. All members present in favor.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to recommend to the Town Board to reappoint David O’Halloran to the position of Alternate for another term. All members present in favor.

 

Mr. Ricks motioned to reappoint Rebecca Paddock Stange as Secretary for the year of 2005. Mr. De Graw seconded the motion. All members present in favor.

 

DEADLINE FOR PLANNING BOARD SUBMISSIONS
Mr. O’Halloran  motioned to change the deadline for Planning Board submissions from 1 week prior to the meeting to two weeks prior to the meeting (two Wednesday before the meeting would be the deadline) to give the Planner ample time to review applications. Seconded by Mr. De Graw. All members present in favor.

 

Mr. Striano motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Tapper. All members present in favor.

 

As there was no further business to discuss, at 10:00PM, Mr. Ricks adjourned the meeting.

 

Respectfully submitted by Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary