MINUTES OF June 21, 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 the Chairman, Melvyn I. Tapper.
PRESENT: Frank Striano, Sr ABSENT:
Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
Robert Gaydos
Melvyn Tapper, Chairman
William De Graw
Nadine Carney
Anthony Kawalchuck
note: Alternate Member, David O’Halloran, was not required to attend this meeting as there was a full Board.
Also present at the meeting was Town Planner, Nancy Vlahos, from The Chazen Companies.
Pledge to the Flag.
Because there was a full Board at this meeting, Alternate Mr. O’Halloran did not attend.
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
POP Construction– Cliff Road, Tax Map #69.1-1-39, ‘A’ District
Mr. Pisani was present on behalf of POP Construction along with representative, Barry Medenbach, PE. Mr. Pisani explained that he was the president of POP Construction. The lot is approximately 6.5 acres in size.
Mr. Medenbach noted that he was in receipt of Highway Superintendant, Wayne Kelder’s, letter dated June 10, 2005 to Mr. Pisani stating that Cliff Road should be improved before any more houses are constructed. Mr. Medenbach stated that he has not looked at the road in question, but he wondered why Mr. Pisani had to apply for Open Development Status. He understood that it was for the creation of lots. He believed that this parcel had already had a mobile home on it, therefore the lot was existing. There was a well and septic on it and the mobile home had been removed and now he wanted to build a home.
Mr. Striano noted that the mobile home had been moved over 5 years ago, which is over what the law allows.
Mr. Medenbach noted that this lot has already been established as a building lot, probably prior to zoning, so he didn’t understand the need for Open Development. He thought it was a legal question.
Mr. Striano noted that things have changed since then. He believes the problem here is the road to the lot, not whether or not the lot existed prior to zoning.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -2- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
POP Construction(cont’d)– Cliff Road, Tax Map #69.1-1-39, ‘A’ District
Mr. Medenbach could understand a building inspector not issuing a building permit to a lot because the access
isn’t adequate, but he doesn’t think the Open Development District is the avenue to take for this.
Chairman Tapper stated that the Code Enforcement Officer, Doug Dymond, sent this to the Town Board, who then referred it to the Planning Board for their advisory opinion.
Mr. Ricks noted that this was because Cliff Road is an undersized right-of-way and this was the reason.
Mr. Medenbach argued that this is a pre-existing condition. He also agreed that he should probably be bringing these questions to Mr. Dymond.
Mr. De Graw questioned if the County was going to require septic approval.
Mr. Medenbach was uncertain at this point, he hasn’t evaluated the existing system.
Mr. Striano stated that he has lived on Cliff Road for 21 years and he was aware that the tank was moved from that lot. What originally happened was that the people who put the trailer in, put it on the wrong parcel and found out that they had overstated their bounds. The adjoining land owners were brother in laws. When they moved the trailer they took the septic tank too. The trailer actually sits in his neighbor’s yard now. It was moved many years ago, this wasn’t something that was recently moved. So, the property has always stated a well and a septic, but they don’t exist.
Mr. Medenbach agreed, but at one time this was an occupied lot.
Mr. Striano noted that the people who occupied the trailer weren’t actually on this lot, they were on the one next to it.
Mr. Pisani stated that there was a well and electric on his parcel.
Mr. Medenbach stated that there are other houses that use Cliff Road.
Mr. Striano explained that he lives on Cliff Road, and that road is impassable by two cars in many places. There is a hill that is impossible. Mr. Striano actually takes care of the road and sands it in the winter which is a very dangerous job. To put even one more family on this road. . .the road needs to be addressed. He would like to see Mr. Pisani build his house. He doesn’t have a problem with that, the problem is that there is a really unsafe situation.
Mrs. Carney questioned if Mr. Medenbach was going to pursue this with Mr. Dymond’s office.
Mr. Medenbach noted that this was the first time he was presented with this client today. So, he has many questions.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -3- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
POP Construction(cont’d)– Cliff Road, Tax Map #69.1-1-39, ‘A’ District
Mr. Pisani’s intention was to build a one family house. There is a shed that has recently been constructed on the parcel now.
Mr. Tapper has taken a ride up that road before and agreed it is poor. Does everyone on that road have to bring the road up to Town Specs?
Mr. Striano noted that there has never been a Road Maintenance Agreement and to ask anyone that is there now to do it? Some of these people feel that they have lived there forever and they maintain it now. They all pitch in their labor and get it done. There is nothing in place to bind people to maintain the road and to put in a certain amount of money. Mr. Striano couldn’t see any other solution than to upgrade the road. He couldn’t see putting more people into an already bad situation.
Mr. Medenbach believed there was a similar situation with Sages Loop Road. They created a Road Improvement District.
Chairman Tapper noted that the Planning Board should consult with the Town Attorney or Mr. Dymond on this.
Mr. Pisani spoke to Mr. Dymond who explained that this property falls under Open Development. The Code Enforcement Office refers the application to the Town Board who then refers the application to the Planning
Board for their advisory opinion and as far as he could tell, this is what was happening.
The Chairman agreed, but stated that Mr. Pisani’s Engineer was questioning if Open Development truly applies to this case.
Mr. Medenbach felt that this was a pre-existing building lot, maybe he needs to demonstrate that he can have access for emergency vehicles, but he doesn’t believe that this falls under Open Development.
Because there was confusion on what Open Development was, the Chairman suggested contacting the Code Enforcement Office and asking why he sent this for Open Development. There is already a letter from Wayne Kelder stating that the road should be improved.
Mrs. Carney felt that if there was only a handful of people that lived on the road it would be in their best to sign on to an agreement and contribute to the maintenance of the road.
Mr. Striano didn’t feel that the Road Maintenance Agreement was the issue. It was the cost of upgrading the road that he felt people would be more apprehensive about.
The Chairman noted that the Road Maintenance Agreement would only be for the person that wanted to build the home, so basically Mr. Pisani would have to sign a Road Maintenance Agreement with the Town.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -4- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
Dylan Taft & John Mikesh– 61 Cliff Road, Tax Map #68.2-2-12, ‘A’ District
Mr. Taft and Mr. Mikesh were present on behalf of their application.
Mr. Mikesh explained that they were joint owners and about a tenth of a mile up the road and on the left from Mr. Pisani’s property.
Mr. Taft noted that it seemed to him that people didn’t want any more building up there because of the dangers of the road.
Mr. Striano asked if Mr. Taft had been on the road in the winter.
Yes he had.
Mr. Striano felt this was entirely a safety issue.
Mr. Mikesh was familiar with road maintenance and he understood Mr. Striano’s position. He would help to get the road to a decent condition, but he wasn’t going to invest thousands of dollars when he didn’t know everyone else’s position. He felt that Mr. Striano was upset about this and he just wanted to get to a point where they could agree on how to tackle this.
Mr. Taft questioned if the Town didn’t want to help with any of the maintenance of the road?
Mrs. Carney felt that it could be a possibility, but at this point they need to get some answers back from the Town Attorney to see what the next steps would be.
Mr. Taft and Mr. Mikesh’s lot accesses Cliff Road by a right-of-way.
As Mr. Mikesh is familiar with the law, a 30’ right-of-way is substantial enough for one building lot. With two or more lots, you would need a 50’ right-of-way. He wanted to know what the next step would be in this process.
Mr. Ricks noted that as in Mr. Pisani’s situation, the Board would be contacting the Town Attorney and get a legal opinion.
Mr. Taft understood that 20 years of labor on the people that live on Cliff Road is a lot. They weren’t trying to come in and just put a house up and sell the land and not compensate or help the existing owners.
After further discussion it was agreed that the Town Attorney would be consulted in this situation.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -5- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
Kevin Mahoney– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 10 lot subdivision, Lower Whitfield Road, Tax Map #68.4-
4-4.12, R-2 District
Mr. Mahoney was present with his representative, Mr. Medenbach.
Chairman Tapper apologized, but at the last meeting for Mr. Mahoney, he noted that he had stated that the Board had received a letter from the State Office of Parks & Recreation and they didn’t see a problem with the Mahoney Subdivision and Mr. Tapper also noted at that time that the Board received a letter from the Town’s Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) stating the same. Since that meeting, it has been brought to his attention that the Board never received a letter stating “No Impact” from the Town’s HPC. Mr. Tapper believed that he looked at a letter stating “No Impact” maybe in regards to another subdivision.
The Town’s HPC Chairperson, Mrs. Cross, has sent follow up letters to the Board dated June 10, 2005 stating their position and noting that correspondence was sent to Medenbach & Eggers dated January 25, 2005 of the same content. Because there were historic properties and buildings surrounding the property in question owned by Mr. Mahoney, Mrs. Cross suggested ample screening to protect the rural characteristics of the area and that maybe deed restrictions be set in to place to ensure the quality of the homes that will be constructed in this subdivision.
Mr. Tapper also noted that there has been correspondence received from the Unite States Environmental Protection Agency dated June 7, 2005 stating that there may be some Federal Wetlands on the project site. This issue would also need to be pursued.
Mr. Medenbach noted that they have contacted a wetlands specialist and they will identify any Federal Jurisditictional Wetlands, map them and produce a report for the Board. He believed if there were any wetlands on the property that they would probably be associated with the stream and they wouldn’t be disturbing that area anyway. A tenth of an acre of a Federal Wetland can be disturbed without any permits.
At this time Mr. Medenbach gave a brief presentation for the public. The property in question is +/- 29 acres and has a small amount of frontage on Lower Whitfield Road. Next door is Chris and Jackie Kelder’s property. There is a stream runs along side of the property. The proposal is to create 10 building sites and the land is pretty much open fields divided by stone walls. They would honor those divisions with the lots. There is a seasonal stream that runs through a couple of the lots. It dries up in the summer. They would be putting a conservation easement over it so it wouldn’t be disturbed. There would be a private road where the driveways would come off. A Stormwater Management Plan was prepared to control all of the run off from the road and houses that complies with the state requirements. Mr. Mahoney plans on building custom homes that he would be constructing himself.
The Chairman explained that there was an issue with possibly requiring permanent siting of homes and not being able to change that home site unless it came back to the Planning Board. Mr. Tapper was able to speak to the Town Attorney yesterday afternoon and she researched the Town Laws and there are presently no requirements to give the Board authorization to require an applicant to site the home in a specific area. The note
T/ Rochester Planning Board -6- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
Kevin Mahoney(cont’d)– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 10 lot subdivision
that Mr. Medenbach has been placing on his plans that require an applicant to go back to the engineer to make sure there isn’t an excessive disturbance is sufficient.
At this time Chairman Tapper read letters dated January 25, 2005 and letters dated June 10, 2005 from Mrs. Cross of the Town’s HPC.
Mr. De Graw questioned if this property was in an agricultural district?
Mr. Medenbach replied that it was not.
Chairman Tapper questioned if the Stream Crossing permit was approved by the DEC yet?
Mr. Medenbach explained that until the Board makes a SEQRA determination, they won’t issue the permit. They will probably send a notice of incomplete application with a list of outstanding items.
There was a question about the trees on the property and whether or not they would maintain.
Mr. Medenbach replied that there weren’t that many trees on the property, but they would preserve as many as they could.
The Chairman opened the Hearing to the public.
Mrs. Alice Cross was recognized to speak. She asked if Mr. Mahoney would be willing to establish deed restrictions that would have a minimum square footage requirement. Maybe 2,000 to 2,500 square feet. This would reassure the Historic Preservation commission that the nature of the community would maintain the existing quality. She also expressed concern for additional screening to be added.
Mr. Mahoney noted that they will keep as many, if not all of the existing trees on the property.
Next to speak was John Frank, representing his son a bounding property owner, Robert Frank. He was aware that the Town was zoned at 1 house per acre. Would there be any stipulations restricting further subdividing these lots?
Mr. Medenbach stated that they would put deed restrictions stating that there could be no further subdivision of the lots.
There was no one else to speak.
Chairman Tapper noted that Mr. Mahoney had to hear back from his wetlands surveyor, propose deed restrictions and show a landscaping plan to continue the public hearing. The Board wouldn’t be closing the public hearing because of this outstanding information.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -7- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
Kevin Mahoney(cont’d)– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 10 lot subdivision
Mr. Kawalchuck motioned to adjourn the public hearing until said information is received. Mrs. Carney seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
Guiseppe & Antonella Cassano– Special Use Permit for change of use from retail sales to membership club, Route 209, Accord, Tax Map #69.3-3-3.1, ‘B’ District
Mrs. Cassano was present on behalf of their application and explained that currently there are 3 buildings on the property. The first building is a tanning salon that is staying the way it is. The second building is changing from retail sales to a membership club. She currently has a fitness center is Stone Ridge and she wishes to relocate it to the second building. She recently received approval from the NYS DOT.
Mrs. Carney motioned for Intent for Lead Agency, seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Involved agencies to be contacted would be the Ulster County Planning Board, the Ulster County Health Dept., the Historic Preservation, Commission and the NYS DOT.
Mrs. Carney stated that she would contact Mr. LaRose from the NYS DOT to follow up on the status of the permit.
After discussion, Mrs. Cassano stated that she would remove the proposed sign from plans. She also noted that she would have the scaling issue on the plan resolved before the plans were sent to the Ulster County Planning
Board.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the July meeting. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
T/ Rochester Planning Board -8- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Mrs. Carney motioned to type the action as Unlisted under SEQRA, seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Vincent Valetutti– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision, Cedar Drive, Tax Map # 68.1-3-32
‘ A’ District
Mr. Medenbach was present on behalf of Mr. Valetutti to discuss his application. He was under the impression that the Public Hearing was closed a couple of meetings ago.
The Board was uncertain and said they would check the minutes and get a response to Mr. Medenbach.
Mr. Medenbach read a portion of his letter submitted to the Planning Board and dated May 12, 2005.
He explained that a drainage plan for this subdivision was not warranted. They were seeking coverage under the State General Permit (GP-02-01) for Stormwater Management. Basically there is no requirement under the Phase II to do a drainage treatment plant. They are not creating a road where there would be ditches accumulating water. Currently there is a gravel driveway and the water just sheet flows off into the woods on both sides. They aren’t changing that. What is he supposed to calculate?
Chairman Tapper questioned if a drainage plan would state that.
Ms. Vlahos noted that he would just be preparing stormwater volume calculations.
Mr. Medenbach stated that when preparing a Stormwater Management Plan, there is usually an impact point or a discharge point. Right now, the runoff is just sheet flowing in multiple directions. You could do a hypothetical calculation, but it is almost meaningless.
Ms. Vlahos noted that it was a concern at the Public Hearing and this is why the Board was asking for some sort of verification that there wouldn’t be a drainage problem.
Mr. Medenbach didn’t believe that Public Comment itself justified the preparation of a study. A study is not necessary. This is a small scale development, these are individual homes, just like anyone building a house on any other lot.
Chairman Tapper noted that the problem with this subdivision was that it is on the side of a hill.
After further discussion where Mr. Medenbach explained this is very low impact, there are only 4 lots on 23 acres, Mr. Ricks agreed that he believed that a lot of stuff that the Board asks for is a time consuming exercise and he thought that if the engineer puts his professional license on the line and says there is only going to be 3 or 5% increase in drainage, the Board should accept that. If the consulting engineers have a disagreement with something, they should say so. To do all of these elaborate studies where all of this time and money is spent. . ..the members on the Board don’t even know what these numbers mean.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -9- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Vincent Valetutti(cont’d)– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision
Ms. Vlahos questioned if Mr. Ricks felt that an engineer should review these plans at Chazen as well? They have done a Planning Review just looking at Zoning Conformance, they could do an engineering review as well.
Mr. Ricks felt that if someone with a NYS professional Engineer’s license is putting their stamp on it and they are certifying it that he would accept it. It would be no different than having a bunch of lawyers looking at it. They could disagree on the same topic also.
Mr. Medenbach stated that what he is being asked is total overkill. This project has been a test case for the Planner. This is the first application that the Planner has reviewed. . .
Mr. Gaydos motioned to forego any other engineering and move on with this application.
DISCUSSION: If an application had more of an impact, for example if there was a subdivision with 7 lots on 10 acres—that may be more of an impact and require a little more review, but 4 lots on 23 acres?
Chairman Tapper questioned what about the lots being on a hill?
Mr. Gaydos felt that the property was good. There is good soil on the site so there will be all inground septic systems. Plus they are sharing one common driveway and the driveway exists.
Chairman Tapper still felt that the hill was the issue. If there was 10 acres on a flat piece of land, there may not be any run off or erosion.
Mr. Gaydos restated his motion to accept Mr. Medenbach’s engineering and to accept the drainage plan as it is (Stormwater Management Plan). Mr. Kawalchuck seconded the motion.
Vote: Striano- Abstain Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- No
Tapper- No Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Ms. Carney noted that every subdivision that comes before the Board is reviewed individually by the Board and what is required of each applicant may not be required by the next, does not set a precedent, although she didn’t believe it would have been too difficult to submit some drainage calculations.
The Chairman noted that the secretary would check and see if the Public Hearing was closed and if it wasn’t, they would schedule it for the July meeting.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -10- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Vincent Valetutti(cont’d)– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision
Mr. Gaydos motioned to give Preliminary Approval to the Valetutti Subdivision if it is found that the Public Hearing was previously closed. If it is found that it was not closed, it will be scheduled for the next available meeting to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ricks.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- No
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
The Planner pointed out that the Board never went through and officially voted on Part 2 of the EAF.
At this time, the Board did so.
Mr. Ricks motioned to accept Part 2 of the EAF as prepared by the Planner, seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Mr. Ricks motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA, seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
To follow procedure, Mr. Gaydos restated his motion:
Mr. Gaydos motioned to give Preliminary Approval to the Valetutti Subdivision if it is found that the Public Hearing was previously closed. If it is found that it was not closed, it will be scheduled for the next available meeting to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ricks.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- No
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
T/ Rochester Planning Board -11- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED REVIEW
Donald Hasenflue– 4 lot subdivision, Granite Road, Tax Map # 76.4-2-14, R-1 District
Mr. Hasenflue was present to discuss his application.
Mrs. Carney questioned if the Board has done any determinations or if they have made any motions on this application.
The Chairman stated that the Board hasn’t made any determinations on this application as of yet.
Mr. Hasenflue was under the assumption that he was supposed to have a Public Hearing this month.
The secretary had previously reviewed the minutes for Mr. Hasenflue and they clearly stated that he would be rescheduled for Continued Application Review only.
The Board agreed that they didn’t have enough information to set it for Public Hearing at that time.
After reviewing the application Mr. Ricks motioned to declare intent for the Town of Rochester to be Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Involved agencies to contact would be the Ulster County Health Dept. , NYS DEC, Ulster County Highway, and the Town’s HPC.
Mrs. Carney motioned to type the action as Unlisted under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Abstain
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Discussion: Mr. De Graw didn’t feel the Board could type the action before they received responses from the involved agencies.
Mrs. Carney stated that if they received any information that contradicted the typing of an action, the Board could always change it.
Mr. Ricks motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the July meeting. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
T/ Rochester Planning Board -12- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED REVIEW
Donald Hasenflue(cont’d)– 4 lot subdivision, Granite Road
Mrs. Carney noted that there was not more than 5 acres of disturbance, so a Stormwater Management Plan really wasn’t required.
Mr. Hasenflue stated that there were drainage provisions for each lot and there also were retention basins being proposed.
Mrs. Carney stated that in the review letter from Chazen, they were asking for an engineer to review the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). She didn’t believe this should be required because there is less than 5 acres of disturbance and the NYS DEC requirements ask for the SWPPP if there is more than 5 acres of disturbance for residences. She didn’t believe there should be engineering review on this.
The Board agreed that if the NYS DEC didn’t require it, the Board shouldn’t either.
Mrs. Carney asked the applicant to have his engineer revise the plan to show that the road construction is less than 2 acres.
CONTINUED REVIEW
VICTOR VAN BORKULO- c/o Taconic Designs, 6 lot subdivision, Millbrook Lane, Tax Map #
76.002-2-6.411 R-2 District
Mr. Ricks recused himself.
Mr. Cellas of Taconic Designs was present on behalf of this application. He stated that he was hoping to get Preliminary Approval as the Public Hearing was closed at the last meeting and he the comments from Chazen’s last review letter would be addressed prior to Final Approval.
Mrs. Carney motioned to declare the Planning Board as Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Kawalchuck. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
At this time the Board went through Part 2 of the EAF.
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept Part 2 of the EAF as prepared by the Planner. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Recuse Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
T/ Rochester Planning Board -13- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
CONTINUED REVIEW
VICTOR VAN BORKULO(cont’d)- c/o Taconic Designs, 6 lot subdivision
Mrs. Carney motioned for a Negative Declaration, seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Recuse Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Mr. Tapper motioned to give Preliminary Approval to the Victor Van Borkulo 6 lot Subdivision with the Conditions as outlined in review letter dated June 20, 2005 including Ulster County Health approval and obtaining a SPEDES Permit. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. No discussion
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Recuse Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Peter Sutherland– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision, Stony Kill Road, Tax Map# 76.4-3-21, R-1 District
M Mr. Ricks returned to the Board.
Mr. Sutherland was present along with representative, Barry Medenbach to discuss his application. He
explained that he is proposing to subdivide +/-33.176 acres into 4 lots. All of the lots are over 4 acres and therefore this application doesn’t require Planner review. Mr. Sutherland noted that he currently resides on Parcel 2 and his driveway is an old logging road and actually goes over onto the proposed lot #2.
Chairman Tapper questioned what if he sold his house in the future, we couldn’t have a driveway going onto someone else’s lot. He suggested putting an easement over or showing a different location for where the driveway will go. Just fix it on the map. Mr. Sutherland didn’t actually have to do anything physical right now.
The Board also noted that Mr. Sutherland’s map was incomplete and that he should definitely have topography on the map and follow the subdivision regs.
Once Mr. Sutherland had more complete maps and a long EAF he would be set on the agenda for continued application review.
.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -14- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
10P5C- c/o Colin Houston– PLS, 4 lot subdivision, Project 32 Road, Tax Map # 76.4-3-15.115, R-1 District
Mr. Houston was present on behalf of his clients to discuss this application. He explained that this was part of an old Marty Tully Subdivision.
Mr. Ricks noted that there is a question about where Project 32 Road is Town Maintained. He was aware that
only a portion of it is maintained by the Town.
The Board discussed the application and informed Mr. Houston that he would need to show topography in the areas of disturbance and all lots would need Health Dept. approval. They would also need to find out if this was a Town maintained road and if it wasn’t the issue would be to find out if there was a 50’ right-of-way to the Town road.
Chairman Tapper motioned for Intent for Lead Agency. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned to type the action as Unlisted under SEQRA. Mr. Gaydos seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
ADVISORY TO TOWN BOARD
The Board discussed the advisory request for the Site Plan Approval Checklist.
Mrs. Carney had only one request. She would like to see the word “including” taken out of item #6.
Mr. De Graw felt that the proposed Site Plan Approval Checklist was too strict. This is a use by right. A Special Use Permit is not a use by right. . .this seems too restrictive.
Mrs. Carney questioned if Mr. De Graw was at the meeting where the Board discussed the Site Plan Approval checklist and actually came up with this checklist and recommended it to the Town Board. Now he thought it was too strict?
Chairman Tapper motioned for a favorable advisory with the stipulation that the word “including” be taken out of item #6. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- No
Gaydos- Yes De Graw- No
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck-No
T/ Rochester Planning Board -15- June 21, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Chairman Tapper motioned to accept as submitted the minutes of May 17, 2005. Seconded by Bob Gaydos. No discussion. All members present in favor.
Mr. Gaydos motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mrs. Carney. All members present in favor, no discussion.
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting at 9:50PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary