MINUTES OF JULY 19, 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: Robert Gaydos Shane Ricks, Vice Chair
David O’Halloran, Alternate
Melvyn Tapper, Chairman
William De Graw
Nadine Carney
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 was recognized as a full Board Member able to make motions and participate in votes.
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
POP Construction– Cliff Road, Tax Map #69.1-1-39, ‘A’ District
&
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
Dylan Taft & John Mikesh– 61 Cliff Road, Tax Map #68.2-2-12, ‘A’ District
Because both of the applications were for the same road and required the same information, they were called to the table together for discussion.
Mr. Pisani was represented by Ed Sprague of Medenbach & Eggers.
Mr. Mikesh was present along with representative, Attorney, Janet Packard.
The Chairman read into record the response from the Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq. dated July 14, 2005 stating NY State Town Law 280-a regarding Open Development as it applies to these applications.
Ms. Packard was concerned that the Board had not directed her applicant in writing. This has made it difficult for them to respond and take the next appropriate steps.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -2- July 19, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
POP Construction(cont’d)– Cliff Road, Tax Map #69.1-1-39, ‘A’ District
&
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
Dylan Taft & John Mikesh(cont’d)– 61 Cliff Road, Tax Map #68.2-2-12, ‘A’ District
Mr. Ricks informed Ms. Packard that the applicants were issued Open Development Checklists that specify what steps need to be taken to get a building permit.
Ms. Packard felt that her clients came away from the last meeting confused. She had spoken to the Town Attorney and was directed to NYS Town Law 280a.
Ms. Carney noted that at the last meeting they discussed a letter from the Highway Superintendent stating that the road needed to be improved to Town Specifications. It wasn’t up to the Planning Board to direct the applicants in what improvements needed to be done to reach this. It was really up to the applicants to present some sort of a plan to the Planning Board at this point. It also wasn’t the responsibility of the Highway Superintendent to go out to the site and give instructions, the applicants need to hire someone on their own.
The Chairman’s view was that the Planning Board could give an advisory to the Town Board saying that the road needed to be brought up to Town Specs. The Town Board would then be the decision makers as to whether or not to grant Open Development. The Planning Board was just giving an advisory. He believed it was up to the applicants to be responsible for the costs of improvements.
Mr. De Graw agreed and stated that there is also the issue of the Road Maintenance Agreement. Because there were other people on the road that might not sign on to the agreement because they are existing, the applicants would probably be legally responsible for maintaining the whole road.
Mr. O’Halloran recommended making a negative recommendation because the road was substandard and the applicants haven’t met the conditions of the checklist.
Ms. Packard wondered why the Board wouldn’t give a favorable advisory with the condition of improving the road. Otherwise, what guarantee did the applicants have that they would actually receive approval once they spent thousands of dollars on improving it? The Board is basically cutting off the use of that property. A bank isn’t going to give a loan for something that isn’t guaranteed approval.
Mr. De Graw noted that the applicants could bring a road design in to get a conditional approval.
Mr. Striano stated that at this point this is only an advisory. The Town Board had the final say.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -3- July 19, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
POP Construction(cont’d)– Cliff Road, Tax Map #69.1-1-39, ‘A’ District
&
OPEN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
Dylan Taft & John Mikesh(cont’d)– 61 Cliff Road, Tax Map #68.2-2-12, ‘A’ District
Mr. O’Halloran motioned for a Negative Recommendation to the Town Board because the two properties didn’t meet the conditions for the Open Development Checklist including the condition of the road and the fact that there isn’t a Road Maintenance Agreement in place. Seconded by Mrs.Carney.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Tapper- No Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Abstain
4AYES 2 NAYS 1 ABSTAIN
DISCUSSION: Mr. De Graw felt the Board could have given a favorable advisory pending the conditions of the checklist were met.
Mrs. Carney stated that the applicants could continue to proceed with the Town Board and submit a Road Maintenance Agreement and a design for the improvements to the road.
Ms. Packard felt that the conditional approval was a very important part of the process because it gave people a reason to invest money in something. Being in the field as an Attorney where people come to her to see whether or not they should buy a piece of property, they want to see that the Town says “as long as you do a,b, & c, you will be fine”. Not this checklist as long as you meet it and design the road to specs. It may be a minor difference to the Board, but to people who are borrowing money or building a house it is not a minor difference. There is a real concern about parting with that money without “this is a condition of approval” as opposed to “you have to finish this and we’ll see if you get approval”.
Mr. De Graw noted that it may not even be possible to build this road or bring it up to specs depending on the terrain and slopes they would have to comply with. The Board wouldn’t want to give someone the false hope that they could invest in something.
Mrs. Carney noted that the Planning Board could give a favorable recommendation and the Town Board could still deny the application any way. That would be giving a sense of false hope as well.
Ms. Packard questioned the Town Board’s time frame.
Mr. De Graw felt that they would have to put it on their next available agenda.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -4- July 19, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
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
Mr. & Mrs. Cassano were present on behalf of their application. They explained that they had accidentally submitted plans to the NYS DOT that were approved, but were different than the plans they gave to the Planning Board They submitted them to the Board at this meeting. The revised plans submitted to the Planning Board showed the correct scale of the maps and the deletion of the proposed signage.
The Board agreed that the Ulster County Health Dept. was contacted as an involved agency and they returned the Intent to be Lead Agency Circulation, with no comment and therefore had no concerns with the change of use of this building from retail sales to a membership club. The Health Dept. was forwarded plans and an application by the Planning Board, so their plans are on file in their office.
At 7:35PM, Chairman Tapper opened briefly explained the application and opened the hearing to the public. There was no comment.
At 7:40PM Chairman Tapper motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Mr. O’Halloran noted that the Board still had to wait to hear from other involved agencies as the 30 day time period in which to receive comments was still open. The Applicants would be put on the next meeting’s agenda for a decision.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vincent Valetutti– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision, Cedar Drive, Tax Map # 68.1-3-32 ‘A’ District
At 7:40 PM Mr. Sprague was present on behalf of Mr. Valetutti’s application.
The Chairman noted that everything was basically done on this application, but to close the Public Hearing. He noted that the Planning Board is in receipt correspondence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Services regarding the potential of an endangered species called the Indiana Bat. It would need to be made a condition of approval that the clearing guidelines between October 1 through March 30th be adhered to.
At 7:45 PMChairman Tapper motioned to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
T/ Rochester Planning Board -5- July 19, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
Vincent Valetutti(cont’d)– c/o Medenbach & Eggers, 4 lot subdivision
Mr. Ricks noted that this letter received from the USFWS seemed farfetched. “There is a potential”. . .
Mrs. Carney noted that this was really up to the applicant whether or not they wanted to procede with performing a study to determine whether or not the Indiana Bats were on the property or adhere to their guidelines. Here the applicant is agreeing to cooperate with clearing between October 1 and March 30th. It is much like the archeological studies that are done.
Mr. De Graw questioned if the Board was bound to give this a Positive Declaration because of the Indiana Bat.
Mrs. Carney further explained that the USFWS is agreeing to follow the guidelines, so they are following mitigation measures.
Mr. O’Halloran motioned to give Conditional Preliminary Approval to the Valetutti Subdivision based on the condition that the applicant meets the recommendation from the USFWS regarding the Indiana Bat. Seconded by Mrs. Carney.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- No
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- No
5AYES 2 NAYS 0 ABSTAIN
PUBLIC HEARING
Donald Hasenflue– 4 lot subdivision, Granite Road, Tax Map # 76.4-2-14, R-1 District-
At 7:45 PM, Mr. Hasenflue was present on behalf of his application.
The Chairman went over the latest letter of review from Chazen and then opened the hearing to the Public. There was no comment.
At 7:50PM, Mr. Striano motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Mrs. Carney noted that the Planning Board was in receipt of all of the information needed and Mr. Hasenflue should come back to the August meeting where the Board would declare Lead Agency and Determine Significance, and grant Approvals.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -6- July 19, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
ZBA ADVISORY REQUEST
Brenda Bush and Ronald Darnley– Use Variance for Beauty Salon in R-1 District, Route
209, Tax Map #69.3-3-28.113
Mrs. Bush and Mr. Darnley were present on behalf of their ZBA Advisory Request to operate a
Beauty Salon in an R-1 District where it is not permitted under zoning.
Mr. Tapper noted that the applicants wouldn’t need a Use Variance if they built a house at the
property in question and operated a salon as a customary home occupation.
Ms. Bush noted that she didn’t want to live on Route 209 or where she worked. She noted tha
the property is basically across the street from her current beauty salon. They are outgrowing
their business and would like to expand. They were aware that if they were granted the variance
that they would have to come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Approval. They felt that
this was one of the only strips along Route 209 that wasn’t zoned commercial.
Mr. Striano motioned to give a favorable advisory to the ZBA seconded by Mr. O’Halloran. No
discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
DISCUSSION
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 Project 32 Road. He explained that he didn’t feel comfortable advising his clients to go ahead with the application until they determined if the Road in question was town maintained and had an adequate right of way.
After reviewing the maps and correspondence from Highway Superintendent, Wayne Kelder regarding the access to their property off of Project 32 Road, the Planning Board instructed Mr. Houston that this was a 50’ right of way that was town maintained and therefore was adequate for subdivision approval.
Mr. Houston noted that his clients would bring the private road up to town standards.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -7- July 19, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Paul Pacht– Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling, Queens Highway, Tax map #68.3-2-54, R-1 district
Mr. & Mrs. Pacht were present on behalf of their application and explained that they were aware that they had enough acreage to build 2 single family dwellings, however they wanted to build a “mother-daughter” 2 family home and therefore would have to obtain a special use permit. They were currently having a survey of the property done and the house site and improvements would be plotted on that map.
Mrs. Carney motioned for Intent for Lead Agency. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Striano. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes
O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Leon & Beth Smith- 4 lot subdivision, Route 209, Tax Map #76.2-2-27.1, ‘B’, R-1 District
Mr. Smith was present on behalf of his application and explained that he wanted to split his +/-
56.420 acres off Route 209 into 4 lots. The right-of-way on the map is owned by himself and the
Schoonmakers. Bounding owners, Davidson, do not have a right-of-way over the drive in
question. Mr. Smith was hoping to sell this property all one piece, and retain lot 4 that has their
house on it for themselves. He is aware that the first lot needs 5 acres to continue to operate as a
trailer park. If the first lot was sold by itself, only 1 mobile home would remain, or they would add
another acre to make it conform to zoning.
Mrs. Carney noted that because the vacant lots proposed were over 10 acres, the Planning
Board could just send an advisory to the Health Dept. The applicant would still need to show
the proposed improvements for the vacant lots on the map.
Because Mr. Smith didn’t understand why he would need to show improvements for such large
lots, Mr. O’Hallloran further explained that the applicant would need his engineer to show the
limits of disturbance for the sake of Stormwater run off. These are part of the subdivision
regulations.
Mr. Smith wasn’t 100% sure if this was the layout he wanted to procede with.
The Board instructed the applicant that they will procede once he decides what he wants to do. He would need to revise the maps according to the subdivision regulations before they would schedule a public hearing or make any determinations on this application.
T/ Rochester Planning Board -8- July 19, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION
Nelson De Gondea- 4 lot subdivision, Pond Road private road off of Rocky Mountain Road, Tax Map #52.020-1-8
The applicant received Conditional Preliminary Approval 2 years ago. The Applicant never finalized his maps and and was given two 90 day extensions and the time period has since expired. He now wants to continue the approval process and change lot lines to subdivision. Because he exceeded the time frames, he needs to reapply and he currently falls under thresholds for Planner Review. Is application pre-existing and not required to be reviewed by Planner?
The Board discussed this and reviewed the conditions left that Mr. De Gondea still needed to full fill and determined that so much has changed in the Planning Board’s review process since Mr. De Gondea first applied and because of the configurations of the lots and the road, they would like to see this application reviewed by the planner.
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mr. Ricks motioned to accept as amended the minutes of June 21, 2005. Seconded by Mrs. Carney. No discussion. All members present in favor.
90 Day Extension for Sahler Mill Woods
Mr. Ricks motioned for a second and final 90 day extension for Sahler Mill Woods. Mr. De Graw seconded the motion. No discussion.
Vote: Striano- Yes Ricks- Yes O’Halloran- Yes De Graw- Yes
Tapper- Yes Carney- Yes
Kawalchuck- Yes
Mrs. Carney motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Striano. All members present in favor, no discussion.
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairman Tapper adjourned the meeting at 9:30PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary