MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2005, REGULAR MEETING
of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD
held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson Melvyn I. Tapper.
PRESENT: Melvyn I. Tapper ABSENT: William DeGraw
Shane Ricks David O’Halloran, Alternate
Frank Striano, Sr. Nadine Carney
Robert Gaydos
Anthony Kawalchuk
THE CHAZEN COMPANIES: Nancy Vlahos, Senior Planner
Pledge to the Flag
SOLLY AVI’-NOM, ZONING BOARD ADVISORY
Area Variance for Addition – Seiber Road, Kerhonkson
Richard Miller, Architect was present to represent the application. Mr. Miller explained to the Board the need for the area variance. The septic system is located on the other side of the house and if relocated would create financial hardship. The location for the proposed addition was the only flat area surrounding the house. He further explained the location of the proposed addition would be in line with the existing house. The addition would be connected with a heated entryway. The applicant would like to create new bedrooms in the addition and remove the existing bedrooms in the existing house to create a large living room. Mr. Miller then presented the Board with photos for review.
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Gaydos for a favorable advisory to the Zoning Board of Appeals. All Members present in favor.
Discussion – Chairman Tapper stated that it was his understanding that the Zoning Board of Appeals may have a problem with a road maintenance agreement.
Mr. Miller explained that the Applicant was willing to sign an agreement however, he was trying to get the neighbors to sign and that he did not understand the legalities of said agreement as the house was pre-existing.
-1-
Mr. Striano and Mr. Gaydos added that a road maintenance should not be necessary as the dwelling is pre-existing.
Chairman Tapper said that a favorable advisory would be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to their next meeting.
MARVIN & GAIL ELLIS – PUBLIC HEARING
(2) Lot Subdivision within existing Subdivision on Princess Lane
Mr. & Mrs. Ellis were present to represent the application.
Chairman Tapper asked if Board of Health approval was obtained.
Mrs. Ellis informed that is was and submitted the approval to the Board.
No one in the public spoke for or against the proposed subdivision.
Motion was made by Mr. Tapper and seconded by Mr. Striano to close the public hearing. All Members present in favor.
Discussion – Mr. Ricks asked if there was a road maintenance agreement for Princess Lane.
Mrs. Ellis stated that it was a Town maintained road.
Motion was made by Mr. Tapper and seconded by Mr. Ricks to declare an unlisted action. All Members present in favor.
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Gaydos to declare and uncoordinated review.
Mrs. Ellis indicated that driveway approval was obtained by the Highway Superintendent’s Office. Approval was submitted to the Board.
Ms. Vlahos advised that a Negative Declaration should be addressed at this time.
Motion was made by Mr. Gaydos and seconded by Mr. Striano for Negative Declaration
All Members present in favor.
Motion was made by Mr. Gaydos and seconded by Mr. Striano for final approval. All Members present in favor.
– 2 –
LORRAINE CALIRI – CONTINUED DISCUSSION
(2) Lot Subdivision, County Route 6, aka, Kyserike Road
Chairman Tapper informed the Board that the Subdivision was formerly approved however, the applicant was unable to obtain driveway approval, and therefore the driveway entrance had to be relocated.
Mr. Ricks asked if driveway approval was obtained.
Ms. Caliri asked if the Board had received the faxed approval.
She was informed that the fax was not received by the Planning Board Office.
Mr. Ricks informed Ms. Caliri that a metes and bounds description was required for the new right of way which was not indicated on the map.
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Gaydos to approve conditional approval based on a new map be submitted to the Board with the metes and bounds description indicating a 50’ right of way off of County Route 6. All Members present in favor.
VICTOR VANBORKULO c/o TACONIC DESIGN CONSULTANTS
PUBLIC HEARING – (6) Lot Subdivision off Mill Brook Lane
Mr. Ricks recused himself from the Board
Mr. Charlie Brown representing the application informed the Board that the 3rd review letter and engineering review was received and that they would be able to address all of the items.
Chairman Tapper informed that Chazen Companies had reviewed the Storm Water Management Plan and that recommendation were made.
Mr. Brown indicated that the recommendation were received and reviewed and that all would be complied with.
Ms. Vlahos stated that she had reviewed the Part II of the EAF.
Mr. Brown informed that the Part I of the EAF was revised as requested for the D.E.C. and the list of approvals required and submitted them to the Board.
Chairman Tapper stated that the Part II EAF Review resulted in no potential large impacts, the project indicated moderate impacts.
– 3-
Mr. Brown informed the Board that a SPEDES permit was submitted to Board as requested.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Jean Wearner stated that she had concerns regarding the drainage easement. The ditch located around her property. The ditch has plenty of water when it rains and it can’t handle any more. The big storms last year created erosion. She added that she was up hill from the project however, still concerned.
Mr. Brown informed that no effect would be up hill and all of the drainage would be down hill from her property.
Jean Wearner asked about the driveway location indicating that it was too close to the property line.
Mr. Brown stated that it probably would not be a problem moving the driveway if necessary in compliance with the law.
Motion was made by Mr. Gaydos and seconded by Mr. Tapper to close the public hearing. All Members present in favor.
Discussion – Mr. Brown informed the Board that he had received comments regarding a test well for water quality.
Mr. Miller asked if the application still met the 62 day requirement for Planning Approval at this time.
Ms. Vlahos indicated that the 62 day requirement could be waived if necessary.
MOUNTAIN VIEW STABLES, c/o MEDENBACH & EGGERS,
PHASE II – HARITON – CONDINUTED DISCUSSION
Subdivision, Private Road off Lucas Turnpike, Accord
Mr. Ricks returned to the Board
Barry Medenbach, Engineer and Mr. McGraff were present to represent the application.
Mr. McGraff informed the Board that at the last meeting, bonding of the road was addressed. He forwarded the Town Attorney a copy of the last agreement stating that no bond was required for the same amount of lots. He further offered to add a note that no building permits would be issued on the lots served by the private road, which would be the back four lots until approval was obtained by the Superintendent of Highways for a private driveway. Lots # 10 and 14 access off the cul-de-sac. The remaining four lots access off the private drive.
– 4 –
Mr. Ricks stated that the previous subdivision road was bonded to the cul-de-sac. He asked if the remaining portion of the road required bonding. He was informed that it did not.
Mr. Graff indicated that he had submitted a letter addressing the release of a portion of the lease to Mr. Ferro which would be up to the Board at its discretion.
Chairman Tapper stated that would be contingent upon approval by the Town Attorney.
Mr. Ricks added that Wayne Kelder should be advised of the release.
Mr. Graff advised the Board that a negative declaration had been granted previously and he also submitted a revised short form EAF with reduced numbers.
Mr. Ricks stated that it was just a revision in an approved subdivision with one less lot .
Mr. Medenbach informed that new maps with notes shall be submitted to the Board.
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Gaydos that Conditional Final Approval be granted and have the Town Attorney verify that all road maintenance agreement approval and driveway approval have been properly filed and submitted. All members present in favor. When verified by the Town Attorney the Chairman shall stamp and sign the map. It was further added that the motion should be amended to include the added notation regarding the issuance of Certificate of Compliance prior to final driveway approval be placed on the map.
MOUNTAIN VIEW STABLES, c/o MEDENBACH & EGGERS, PHASE III
PUBLIC HEARING, Subdivision, Private Road off Lucas Turnpike, Accord
Mr. Medenbach explained to the public that the area was a large track of land, formerly the DeJager Farms that has come through two subdivision phases at this point. The first phase is the Rondout Lane which consists of 7 lots. The second phase included the construction of a road which is still under construction to service 6 lots which are adjacent to Rondout Creek. The area is very high above the creek area. The previous application was to reduce to 5 lots and shorten the cul-de-sac. At this time the application is for 3 lots off of the road previously approved. Lots are 9, 11 & 14 acres with a remaining 128 acres.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Ira Stern indicated that he reviewed a map in the Planning Board Office showing a Historic Preservation Area.
-5-
Mr. Ferro said that the area was an old farm house.
Mr. Ricks stated that is was shown on the map as an approximate 70 % portion of Lot #14.
Mr. Medenbach indicated that the area could not be disturbed and added that another 50’ beyond the actual area would not be disturbed.
Mr. Stern added that he built his house out of site from the creek as to accommodate the creek site distance. The creek is used for canoes, duck hunting and fishing and he encourages people to walk in and use it. He would appreciate a buffer from the bank to prevent visual impact from the stream.
Mark Gottlieb indicated concern with neighbors on Rondout Lane regarding road access to the adjacent properties during the construction. He stated that Mr. Hariton informed him that if the road was damaged that it would be corrected.
Mr. Gottlieb added that he had two young children and his house was located directly across from the outlet which was referred to. A utility box is located in that area and he is concerned that a large truck or other traffic could damage.
Mr. Gottlieb added that he understood that the value of his house would go up accordingly with the new homes. His concern was with the condition of the road.
Mr. Stern asked about deed restrictions.
Mr. Ferro stated that a deed restriction was added that no other lots could be further be subdivided.
Britton Baker asked if there was any way to move the road.
Mr. Ricks stated that this was within an approved subdivision.
Mr. Medenbach added that it was looked into and the County did not want to see an additional driveway at that location.
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Striano to close the public. All Members present in favor.
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks for Preliminary and Conditional Final Approval seconded by Mr. Kawalchuk for lots #16, 17, &18. All Members present in favor.
-6-
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Gaydos that the Chairperson stamp maps when submitted with the requested changes. All Members present in favor.
RV ASSOCIATES, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, STORAGE FACITLITY
(2) ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES, PUBLIC HEARING
Mettacahonts Road, Accord, NY
Shane Ricks recused himself from the Board
The Board reviewed the new site plan.
Mr. Ricks indicated that he has submitted a new map with all of the Planning Board requirements.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Briton Baker asked if the Board Members would visit the site to review the map. It is a need to clarify a commercial zone along Route 209. It was his understanding that a 600’
–vs- 1,000’ zone was not clarified on a Town map. He added that the Town needs to clarify the commercial zone along Route 209.
Chairman Tapper informed him that the map was reviewed by the Town Attorney and the conclusion was that the Business District location within 300’ would be expanded to 600.’. The law never addressed the properties which were existing in 1,000’ to be reduced to 600’. He added that this application was addressed according to the map dated in 1983 in which the Business District was indicated as 1,000 of the Business District.
Mr. Baker asked if the Town needed a new map which would be approved by the Town Board.
Mr. Tapper advised that it would be a Town Board issue to address the issue of a new Town map and recommended the new set back be 1,000’ off of Route 209.
Chairman added that the official maps for the Town of Rochester are the 1983 map.
Mr. Baker added that the Planning Board makes recommendations to the Town to Board to approve a final map.
Mr. Tapper stated that it was at the discretion of the Town Board and not up to discussion.
Mr. Baker asked of if screening has been addressed for R.V. Associations.
-7-
Mr. Ricks informed that the existing trees were over 12’ tall when they were planted.
They were planted over the double size of normal and over the size of the buildings.
Ruth Bendelius stated that on February 15, 2005 a F.O.I.L. request was submitted to the Town and she received the following response. LETTERS ATTACHED
Councilman Francis Gray asked that if a lay person could find this kind of discrepancy, how could the Board make this recommendation, and that he would advise the Board to
be very careful in the decision.
Len Bernard stated that Mr. Ricks was a very conscious neighbor of their business needs regarding the community.
Kathy Kuthy wanted to clarified the map districts regarding the commercial districts.
Chairman Tapper indicated that if legal litigation was necessary , it would be up to the Town Attorney to litigate.
Mr. Kawalchuk asked the public if the site location was a problem.?
The public ????????????? asked how far the business district is set back from Rt. 209.
Chairman Tapper informed that it varies from the map, it is not 600’ throughout the map.
Mr. Medenbach agreed that the map in controversy and the final decision should be based on the Town Attorney.
Motion was made by Mr. Tapper and seconded by Mr. Gaydos to close public hearing. All Members present in favor.
Motion was made by Mr. Gaydos and seconded by Mr. Striano for Final Approval. All Members present in favor.
KEVIN MAHONEY c/o MEDENBACH 7 EGGERS,
CONTINUED DISCUSSION, 10 Lot Subdivision, Lower Whitfield Road
Mr. Ricks returned to the Board.
Chairman Tapper informed the Board that a letter was received by the Rochester Residents Assoc., indicating the that the project was possibly adjacent to an historic site. Also submitted was a letter from the N.Y.S. Parks and Recreation stating that the project would have no impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
-8-
The Chairman indicated that a letter was received by Alice Cross , Town Historic Preservation Commission Officer that stated that the proposed subdivision would have no impact.
The Board reviewed the maps at that time and they discussed the storm water management facilities which would be maintained by the owner and operator of the road. A pond would be constructed along the road on Lot #6.
Mr. Ricks asked Ms. Vlahos if there had been engineering review of the application and if the escrow funds had been addressed.
Ms. Vlahos indicated that the storm water plan would be reviewed by an engineer and the fees are taken out of the same escrow account mentioned.
Mr. Medenbach informed the Board that this project required D.E.C. approval to cross the stream and as a result of that requirement the D.E.C. will also review the Storm Water Management Plan and contact the Planning Office regarding any and all approvals.
Mr. Ricks asked Ms. Vlahos if Chazen Engineering review would be necessary since the D.E.C. would be reviewing the engineering on this project.
Ms. Vlahos stated that it was not necessary, however it would be an extra measure of review.
Mr. Medenbach informed the Board that the D.E.C. will submit documentation listing all approvals. He then explained the flow of water shown on the maps.
The Board reviewed the 3rd review letter from Chazen Companies.
Mr. Medenbach had questions regarding several issues in the review letter.
He stated that #5 of the Planning Review should not be required as minimum sight distance should not be 295 feet. That requirement is designed for running travel distance and not the same sight distance for intersections.
He explained that the maps show basic building area with minimum set back requirements and that he should not have to show the exact location of the proposed structures as each individual lot owner should be able to place their house anywhere within the set back requirements.
Item #6 requires profiles for each driveway. He stated that the land was basically flat and that driveway profiles would be a waste of time and would not benefit anyone.
Ms. Vlahos asked Mr. Medenbach if all of these issues were the same issues the letter submitted to the Planning Office. Mr. Medenbach confirmed that they were.
-9-
Mr. Tapper explained that the issues would be discussed with the Town Attorney.
Mr. Medenbach further explained that the submitted plan indicates all the requirements for land disturbance and driveways and it up to each individual owner to comply with the applicable requirements within the subdivision.
He further questioned the requirement of changing the general conditions notes to be shown on the map regarding any changes without Planning Board Approval. He stated that it should require engineer approval, not Planning Board.
Mr. Medenbach listed the number of items in the review letter that he did not agree with.
Numbers 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 & 12.
Mr. Ricks stated that these issues should be explained in detail to the Town Attorney
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Gaydos to schedule the public hearing for next month. All Members present in favor.
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Gaydos to declare Unlisted Action. All Members present in favor.
Motion was made by Mr. Tapper and seconded by Mr. Ricks to declare intent for Lead Agency.
AMPLE SELF STORAGE, CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Self Storage Facility, Route 209
Mr. Ricks recused himself from the Board
Todd Bivona was present to represent the application.
Mr. Bivona stated that at the last meeting it was understood that if he removed the two buildings on the left a traffic study would not be required.
Mr. Tapper indicated that an access safety analysis should be addressed.
Mr. Medenbach informed the Board that he is obtaining an access permit from the D.O.T.
Mr. Bivona advised that there would be no reconfiguration of the site as everything has been engineered and moving buildings would create problems regarding ice build up and drainage.
Mr. Striano agreed that reconfiguration would create problems.
Mr. Tapper stated that he wanted to see the buildings turned in the other direction.
-10-
Mr. Striano added that the reduction of the two buildings eliminates R.V. and trailered boat traffic.
Mr. Gaydos indicated that a traffic study should be required because of the number of surrounding business.
Mr. Medenbach explained that the D.O.T. addresses the traffic access, drainage plan and that they have standards they must comply with. The proposed entrance is the best location for site distance in that location.
Mr. Gaydos stated that due to the location of the area a full traffic study is warranted.
Motion was made by Mr. Striano for a safety analysis rather than a traffic study.
The Board discussed the traffic generated by the facility.
Ms. Vlahos suggested a safety analysis rather than a traffic study.
Mr. Tapper stated that a vote was taken for a traffic study at the last meeting, however the site plan has been reduced by two structures. He asked the Board if a traffic study would still be warranted.
Motion was made by Mr. Striano to accept a safety analysis rather than a full traffic study.
The Board further discussed the traffic generated by the facility.
Mr. Kawalchuk advised his concerns regarding the ability for tractor trailers to exit the site without backing out onto Route 209. He then asked just what would a traffic study address.
Ms. Vlahos informed that a traffic study focuses more on the volume of traffic not the geometric safety issues. She added that a safety analysis should be adequate.
Mr. Tapper seconded Motion made by Mr. Striano to accept a safety analysis reserving the right to require a traffic study if a traffic problem arises. All Members present in favor except Mr. Gaydos.
VINCENT VALETUTTI, DISCUSSION
4 lot Subdivision, Cedar Drive.
Mr. Ricks returned to the Board.
-11-
Mr. Tapper informed the Board that Mr. Medenbach has the same issues and comments with this application as the Mahoney application.
Mr. Medenbach once again explained his reasons for disagreement with the requirements of locking in a building location on the maps.
The Board discussed the check list and the ability to waive requirements based on each application.
At 10:00 Mr. Gaydos excused himself from the Board due to a car accident.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Motion was made by Mr. Tapper and seconded by Mr. Striano to approve the Minutes of the March 15, 2005 and the April 19, 2005 Planning Board Regular Meetings.
OTHER MATTERS
The Board discussed the requirements for a pre-application presentation.
MINUTES OF THIS DISCUSSION WERE PREPARED BY REBECCA PADDOCK-STANGE, PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY. (ATTACHED)
Motion was made by Mr. Ricks and seconded by Mr. Tapper to adjourn the meeting.
The ayes were unanimous and at 10:30 PM, Chairperson Tapper adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted
Brenda Striano
Code Enforcement Office Secretary
A portion of the May 17, 2005 Regular Planning Board Meeting discussing a proposed water park at the Hudson Valley Resort.
OTHER MATTERS
Mr. Tapper noted that on May 31, 2005 the Planning Board was asked to attend a Meeting regarding the Hudson Valley Resort (for a proposed water park).
Mr. Ricks explained that he had a problem with this meeting, he questioned who called for the meeting to take place.
Chairman Tapper stated that everyone had the same question, “There is no application, so why is the Supervisor calling the meeting?”
Mr. Ricks noted that he was probably not going to attend the meeting. Everyone talks about the Planning Board and their consistency on applications. This was not being consistent.
The Chairman believed that this was a Pre-Application Presentation, therefore they were following procedure, he had no problem with the meeting being presented for all of the boards in the Town, but why was it being set up by the Supervisor’s Office?
Mr. Ricks felt that this wasn’t being done right at all and motioned for the members to follow proper procedures and handle it like all other applications. Mr. Kawalchuck seconded the motion. Mr. Ricks wanted the Hudson Valley Resort to file a Zoning Permit with the Code Enforcement Office and then come in front of the Planning Board for a Pre-Application Presentation.
DISCUSSION ON MOTION:
Mr. Kawalchuck agreed that the people keep screaming for consistency, then they scream for the Board to follow the law, and then they scream not to follow the advice of the Town Attorney. The Board needs to have some sort of consistency.
Chairman Tapper questioned if this was a motion to boycott the meeting?
Mr. Ricks replied that it was not a motion to “boycott” the meeting, but to follow the Town’s procedure.
The Chairman questioned if that included writing the Supervisor’s office a letter.
Mr. Ricks didn’t believe one was necessary and that the Board should just follow procedure, and review the proposal from the Hudson Valley Resort when it was presented to the Planning Board for their review. At that point the Board may need to make a site visit.
The Chairman didn’t understand the motion.
Mr. Ricks explained that his motion was for the Planning Board to follow procedures like in every application. If the applicant wants to come in front of the Planning Board they need to do it like everyone else.
Mr. Kawalchuck questioned if Mr. Ricks meant that he would like to see some sort of an application generated first.
Mr. Ricks agreed, that he would want to see at least a Zoning Permit Application which is what gets an applicant in front of the Planning Board for a Pre-Application Presentation.
Ms. Vlahos agreed that this was the process for a Pre-Application Presentation.
Mr. Ricks believed that even if the Hudson Valley Resort wanted to have a discussion with the Planning Board, they would just call the secretary and get on the agenda for a discussion. It’s not up to the Supervisor to call all of the Boards and have a special meeting at their place (the Hudson Valley Resort).
Mr. Tapper was unaware that the actual meeting in question was at the Hudson Valley Resort.
Vote on the motion:
Mr. Tapper- Yes Mr. Striano- Yes
Mr. Ricks- Yes Mr. Kawalchuck- Yes
Chairman Tapper questioned if some kind of a letter should be generated stating the Planning Boards decision?
Mr. Ricks didn’t believe it was necessary.
The Chairman questioned if no letter was to be sent should the motion be sent to the Supervisor’s Office?
There were scattered remarks from several Board members that the Chairman could take care of notifying the Supervisor.
Nothing was formally resolved as to if anyone was going to notify the Supervisor’s office of that decision.